|
|
Location: Rhinelander | Gotta dump all water, and presumably bait, before leaving the lake now. No moving from lake to lake with bait or live fish; no taking your remaining bait home. This will change how I buy bait. If we have two vehicles, one answer is to leave the 'extra' bait in a truck onshore, as long as it doesn't cross the landing it's OK to move around.
It's a serious fine too, so I'd pay attention to the new Wisconsin law...
NO dead bait is allowed unless it's salt cured or chemical cured.
Link to the discussion on MuskieFIRST:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=38...
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Certainly a hassle for you fellows up north that have the opportunity to jump from lake-to-lake or people using the more costly big shiners/suckers. I went out on Bago yesterday with a dozen rosies ($2.25) and a dozen small fatheads ($1.25) and, since I didn't do very well, I had to crush about $3.00 worth of minnows on my way off. Not a huge expense but it could add up over the season. I'll probably fish w/ chena, spikes, waxies, and even Gulp a lot more. Might even try chicken skin again. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | One thing comes to mind about leaving live minnows behind at the lake. Where are we gonna put them? Do we dump them on the ice? Is there a grinder there like the cleaning stations around lake michigan? If not, maybe there should be. Is there garbage cans that will reak? who, what, where, and how. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Dumping on the ice and the shore has always been illegal. If there's no trash can, you're supposed to smash 'em and pack 'em. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Yep, thats right Steve, the DNR used their emergency rule making authority to enact a new live bait law that requires you to kill your minnows/Leaches before leaving the shoreline. The local shore channel hoppers are in an uproar about this as well all the ice fishermen. Many of these are younger kids that can't really afford to fish as it is. and we will see even more discussion as the ice thaws and bait prices increase due to the testing that is being required, (I have heard as much as $500 per test).
The true test will be after the spring run here on the Winnebago system when the stress level is at it's peak. If VHS truely has an impact like some are predicting I think there will be even more changes made.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Viking - 12/17/2007 12:42 PM
Dumping on the ice and the shore has always been illegal. If there's no trash can, you're supposed to smash 'em and pack 'em.
In Steves writing it says you cannot take live bait home. You also cannot have dead bait unless its cured. Smash and pack? Most will not take them home. These will be the questions that come up. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| I'm an outlaw. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | In Steves writing it says you cannot take live bait home. Correct. That's the smash part. You also cannot have dead bait unless its cured. The actual rule states, "May not use dead fish, fish eggs, or fish parts for bait." No law against possesing dead bait or transporting it away from the shore. I agree the rule will be difficult to enforce and there will be scofflaws that ignore the rule. however, it isn't that difficult to understand. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| I watched an Ice Fishing show from the comfort of my warm living room on Sunday that featured a WI DNR Warden who was ice fishing up North. He kept 1 minnow bucket in his vehicle that was parked on the shore and took a different bucket with only a few minnows that he thought he would need. Even though he tried to explain the new laws and the need to kill your bait BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE ICE, it looked silly and came off very dumb looking. So the Wolf river this Spring will require anyone who brings minnows and does not use them all to kill perfectly good bait that you intend to use the next day on the same body of water purchased from a licensed WI bait dealer that has meet all the regulations for VHS..... Please.... give me a break. What if you fish from a dock, are you required to keep your minnow bucket a predetermined distance from the water or once you get the bucket too close to the water, do you have to kill all your minnows each time. If a minnow dies in your bucket while you are fishing, is it legal to use or do you have to run back to the shore and properly dispose of each minnow that dies in your bucket. And lastly, are we all going to get in an argument at every landing because we can't prove which bucket was left in the truck with the extra minnows and which one we took out with us to fish from.
Edited by Purple Skeeter 12/17/2007 4:08 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Well said, Mickey. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | NO dead bait is allowed unless it's salt cured or chemical cured.
This is what steve said. Is that correct? Oh well, I think purple skeeter hit it on the head. The bait is coming from dealers who have had them in quaranteen and meet all the variables. The only reason they would want us to kill them is because of the water they are in. The boat and trailer will hold more water than the bucket.
Honestly, I do not see it being good for anyone except the brother of the guy who made the rule and he has the only test equipment for VHS in the state and he is the only licensed guy for VHS testing and it takes 3-5 years of on the job training to be a certified tester. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | Its just more rules that cannot be enforced. Sure some guys will get busted or the guy will truelly be honest and the dnr will citiation him anyway due to what he thinks he saw! what about spinner rigs , lures, fishing line ,sinkers and hooks are they suppose to be sterilized before there used on a different body of water? What about poeple rear tires and bumpers and any other part of there vehicle that touches the water during loading or unloading boat? Do i need to sterilize my Lab if she comes along with me 2x in one week and jumps in the water at the dock and i fished 2 diferent body's of water? Where exactly does this all end?
Edited by eye Lunker 12/17/2007 4:35 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Ohh and another thing, how about duck decoys and water keel deeks. My duck boat always hold 5 gallons of water and we hunt many different bodies. Maybe I will be cautious but I can guarantee most will not. Uninforcable rules yet again.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 31
| Forget the dekes, what about the ducks!? They can't always be completely dry by the time they fly from one water body to another.
Been fortunate here in Michigan so far. All we have to do is give out a receipt with the minnows we sell stating wheather or not they are certified disease free. You can still take them home with you and use them the next day. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| On a side note the Little Chute lock project begins this spring: As for the minnows....I'll follow the law and do my best, I'm even considering an I-Beam trailer, but to blantly disobey this rule is foolish. This disease is alot like the flu, I've never had a flu shot and have never had the flu. am I playing russian roulette? Do I want to do that with one of my favorite pasttimes.....No
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure now isn't it!
Good Luck
Tyee
LITTLE CHUTE (WFRV) - This morning, Congressman Steve Kagen announced plans to begin the construction of a new lift bridge in Little Chute starting in 2009.
After several meetings with local officials, Kagen met with Governor Doyle's transportation team last week to discuss moving the project to the spring of 2009.
"This is a critical and timely investment of our hard-earned tax dollars, for it will stimulate local construction, add tourism dollars to local businesses and at the same time, guarantee the success of two other essential heritage projects - the reconstruction of the Fox Locks and our newest Dutch treat, the Little Chute Windmill," Kagen said.
Design funding for the new bridge is estimated at $590,000. The total estimated cost for the project, including construction engineering, is $6.5 million.
Federal and state transportation funds will pay for 80% of the project, with the remaining 20% split between the Village of Little Chute and Outagamie County
Edited by tyee 12/17/2007 6:39 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | I don't understand why one would be restricted moving bait FROM water VHS free TO other VHS free water. I guess it's an enforcement issue.
Whatever it is, I'll conform, just because it's the law. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| As a kid I grew up on the Rock River in the stretches of Fort Atkinson. During the mid 80's there was a string of fish kills, strange how it hit mostly one type of species. One year it was white bass 2 years later it was carp and Sheephead. To this day I don't think there was ever a reason cited. To me VHS is just another function of nature and the fish will have to endure ma nature's wrath. Very much like humans do also. To legislate something we can't control is foolish. The only reason VHS exists, is because we have testing means to actually give it a name. There have been fish kills ever since I can remember and there will still be fish kills in the future. It's natures way. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I agree. I think this is, as it has been said in the past, the same scare as cwd. The chicken little theory. | |
| | |
| Gentlemen, the problem is that they do not know what the effect will be and can only base such decisions on what VHS has done in other areas and put their best foot forward to TRY and control it's spread. Denny, "chicken little theory", not this time. VHS has the potential to devastate large portions of our fish population and greatly affect our tourism industry. It might not affect ski boat sales but fishing boat sales could surely suffer. Have you personally talked to Kendall or the people in Madison to get the facts? I have.
And Jayman, "The only reason VHS exists, is because we have testing means to actually give it a name." Come on. That is SO off the wall. How about doing a little actual study work on it before writing such inane statements. Here are a few facts for you as published. "VHS was found in European freshwater trout dating to the late 1930s and continues to cause epidemics in European trout farms; it first appeared on the U.S. West Coast in 1988 in marine trout and salmon, and started to be noticed in marine fish off the eastern Canadian province of New Brunswick from 2000-2004. It was first detected in Great Lakes freshwater fish in 2005. The virus found in Wisconsin is a new genetic strain that's most closely related to the virus found in the Pacific Northwest, rather than the strain found in Europe." So, you can see that there has been ways to determine if a fish has VHS since the 1930's. It is also noted that the strain we have here is a mutated strain. It COULD be less harmful or more harmful. It also has shown an ability to kill fish at higher temperatures then the original virus. So, it's not the sky is falling, it's the sky has VHS. Maybe we should just all close our eyes, stick our heads in the sand and cry some more about having to throw away some minnows.
Or maybe we should take note of this FACT; "VHS has demonstrated in other countries and Great Lakes states the potential to cause large fish kills, long-term reductions in wild fish populations, and severe economic losses for the aquaculture industry. Anglers should know that their favorites -- musky, walleye, bluegill, and yellow perch, are among the most susceptible to VHS. They are categorized by the federal government as "Tier 1" species that have been documented to have suffered fish kills.
It is also published; "It's too early to predict the short-term and long-term impacts of this fish disease in Wisconsin. The VHS strain affecting Great Lakes fish is new, so we don't know exactly what to expect."
So, instead of whining about it, do your best to follow the new rules. After all, we WILL find out what effect it has on the system starting this spring. THEN, we may all have something to cry about. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 116
Location: Germantown and Land O Lakes, WI | These new regs are going to do more to the open water guys than the ice fishermen. How many guys trailer up opening weekend and stay on one lake for walleyes? I own a lake home on Palmer/Tenderfoot in Land O Lakes. The boat ramp is a revolving door all weekend...all season...icefishing is the slow season. Musky fishing? You better think about storing suckers in your truck and making runs back as you need to, at 4-5 bucks a pop, nobody is going to want to kill them.
I'm glad top see someone post ..."I'm an outlaw", maybe your $300.00 tickets will go twords stocking. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Doc, I'm glad you have the facts, I want you to explain how you having the facts is going to make a damn bit of difference of what the general public does? The reality of this, yes we here on WF understand VHS, we've heard the warning, "The sky's falling" aruguments. But what about the general public? I know for a fact that a handful of friends of mine that might fish a dozen times a year don't have a clue about these new rules.
When VHS "came out" last year I had lots of friends and family ask me "what's going to happen to Winnebago?" "Can you still eat the fish?", probably the two most common questions. While I couldn't answer the first one, why? because I don't know, the second one I told 'em to continue to eat the fish. To come on this "little website" in the big piciture of it all and tell me to get the facts, now that's asenine.
Now, I hope you feel better comeing to this "little website" and pound your chest that I should get the facts. But in the big picture of it all, it ain't gonna make a damn bit of difference. The general public don't know, they don't understand the new "emergency" rules. The VHS problem has been mostly targeted at fisherpeople (probably because fisherpeople whine the most). I haven't seen nor heard anything towards lake shore owners, jet skiers, water skiers, general pleasure craft users, or waterfowl hunters. To believe this problem lies soley on fisherpeople is absurd. Ain't gonna make a damn bit of difference.
The locks, yet they continue to push foward. The solution make boat owners clean their hulls and bilge areas. By some sort of wash down means. While the DNR damn well knowingly agrees that this is NOT a 100% fool proof system. But it's the "Best" system. The locks WILL open and you nor I will be able to stop that. Yet, the best solutiong to prevent the spread of VHS is to make fisherpeople kill thier bait at the end of the day by rule of "emergency order". This is laughable at best.
Ain't going to make a damn bit of difference to sit and complain about it on some "small website", it's like preaching to the choir. Now.....I've got some fact finding to do. Ya'll feel free to call me an idiot anytime, if it makes ya feel better. 
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | VHS=CWD I totally agree. As far as the new regs, they suck but I am not sure what else they could do. I am not worried about VHS as I am about other invasives. The new regs will help slow the spread even if only a few people are actually following them.
Does anyone know when the FIRST VHS test was done here and on the Bay? Maybe it has been here since the 30's as well??
The truth will be known after this spring and hopefully we are lucky and this is just another "chicken little".
Watch out Jayman, I heard rumors of GMG meeting you out by the bike racks after school. | |
| | |
| Jayman, my post was referring to this statement of yours, "The only reason VHS exists, is because we have testing means to actually give it a name".
As far as the rest of your new post, I am 99% in agreement. (WOW, we agree on two things in one day, time to buy a lottery ticket) But one thing you should try and understand too, is that this (not so)"little" web site is not a closed community. New people from the general public find it every day. Many who visit here never post. Having the facts helps to keep the topic clear of opinion, rumor and false information that keep the general public from having a clear view of what is really going on. As a member who posts regularly and one who I know enjoys the system, it should be an incentive to keep opinion and rumor off of subjects like this. It is my incentive for posting fact where opinion is given that could affect the actions of the general public who visit here. There are billboards, signs at the launches, radio and TV spots all designed to help get the information to the general public who use the system. Hopefully VHS end up as seemingly harmless as CWD, but those in the know, are not wearing such rose colored glasses. Lets hope that this mutated strain is not a virulent and that somehow our system and it's levels of tannic acid (which make it brown) or something else in the water, air, ground or fish, keep it from having a large negative effect here on the Winnebago system. To THAT effect, I'm sure we are all on the same page. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Man,
Just feel the love.
Let's all get into the spirit of the season boys. We have a long ways to go till spring.
Name calling and arguing amongst ourselves does nothing to solve the problem. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Doc,
The testing means we have today is light years ahead of what they had in the '30's. I highly doubt it was called VHS then. It was probably just another fish kill. Testing is so much better today than it was even 10 years ago. I can even recall when they put out the list of lakes in WI that contained mercury.....pretty much everylake upnorht had some kind of mercury levels detected in it. It was later discussed that because of IMPROVED testing methods that they were able to detect the mercury and the problem itself had probably not gotten any worse and that the mercury levels were steady.
Much like VHS, the means we have to test it is great and is a tool. but I think we need to be a bit more rational on how we control the spread of exotics. Emergency rules that have little chance of being successful and even tougher to enforce. Doesn't do any more good than to sit and worry about it.
I have seen first hand what VHS can do, I also don't think it'll be the "end of the world" as some would like us to believe. Detroit river a couple springs ago we saw hundreds....hundreds of dead muskies floating down from the St Clair. BUt to the best of my knowledge the muskie population is largely intact and a very viable resource.
A second thought that bothers me even more so, is the idea of legislating a disease. It's just not a realistic idea, virus' and bacterias are constantly mutating if we could realistically control these, I would think we could realistically "eliminate" the common cold. Yet, scientifically it's not possible. So why try to legislate what we can't control? I've always been a firm believer in "worry about what we can control and don't worry about what we can't."
As for the small website, the number of users and visitors to WF is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of fishing licenses sold in WI and even a smaller drop compared to all the recreational water users of WI. Add in the Tourists....you get the idea. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 340
Location: McFarland, WI | Two agencies are involved in the VHS regulations. The Department of Ag Trade and Consumer Protection is propsing new animal health rules including VHS regulations that will impact the live bait industry. There is a public hearing at Fox Valley Tech College on Monday January 7, 2008 6-7 pm. New rules can be viewed at https://apps4.dhfs.state.wi.us/admrules/public/Home | |
| | |
| Again, opinion is one thing but here is some more information from an accredited source.
What is VHS and where is it from?
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, known as VHS, is an infectious disease of fish that was diagnosed for the first time ever in 2005 in fish in the Great Lakes, and was confirmed as the cause of fish kills in lakes Huron, St. Clair, Erie, and Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in 2005 and 2006. VHS was detected for the first time this spring in fish from Wisconsin waters of the Lake Winnebago System and Lake Michigan. Fish biologists believe the virus may soon be in fish from Lake Superior and the Mississippi River and their tributaries if it's not already there.
Historically, VHS was known as a very serious disease of farm raised rainbow trout in Europe. The Great Lakes strain of VHS is genetically different than the strains from Europe and the Pacific Northwest, in that the Great Lakes strain seems to affect a wider range of freshwater species over a broader range of water temperatures.
How did VHS get into our lakes?
VHS virus is considered an invasive species (not native to the Great Lakes), but scientists are not sure how the virus arrived. The virus may have come in with migrating fish from the Atlantic Coast. It may have hitch-hiked in ballast water from ships or it may have been brought in with frozen Pacific herring imported for use as bait. Fish may also have carried the virus to Lake Superior and ballast discharged from ships may have moved the virus to port cities there. A likely way the disease is spread is through moving live fish or water from one water body to another. The disease has been found in three inland lakes, one each in New York, Michigan and Wisconsin, and could have hitchhiked in a live well, bilge water, on a boat or in minnows or other live fish.
How does VHS spread to fish and to new lakes?
Infected fish shed the virus into a lake or river through their urine and reproductive fluids. The VHS virus is absorbed into the gills of healthy fish and can remain infective up to 14 days in water. Healthy fish can also be infected when they eat an infected fish. Infected fish and water can easily spread the virus if they are released into a new water body. That’s why emergency rules prohibit anglers, boaters and other water users from moving live fish and water from one waterbody to another.
Why do fish biologists consider VHS a serious threat to Wisconsin fish?
Fish biologists consider the virus a serious threat to Wisconsin fish for several reasons: it can spread easily between fish of all ages, it affects a broad range of our native game fish, panfish and bait fish as well as "rough" fish, and it often kills fish. The strain that has shown up in the Great Lakes is new and fish here have had no exposure to the virus, meaning their immune systems have no defense and are "highly susceptible". This is the first time a virus has affected so many different fish species from so many fish families in the Great Lakes.
Continue to enjoy Wisconsin's great fishing experience!
What is the long-term outlook for VHS?
Fish that survive the infection will develop antibodies to the virus which will protect the fish against new VHS virus infections for some time. However, the concentration of antibodies in the fish will drop over time and the fish may start shedding the virus again, creating a cycle of fish kills that occurs on a regular basis. Nonetheless, experiences from other states indicate that fisheries can and have bounced back.
What are the chances we can stop this disease?
We stand a good chance of slowing the spread of VHS, and we must focus efforts on those pathways that present the greatest risk because they involve the virus at high enough concentrations to infect fish. While a little water left in a bilge, on fishing equipment or carried by a bird all carry a very low risk of transmission, moving infected fish or large amounts of water that contain the virus to new locations are high risk activities. That's why DNR's emergency rules require draining all water from boats and do not allow live fish to leave boat landings. In the Great Lakes, efforts need to be directed to the movement of large amounts of ballast water by cargo ships, especially in cases where ballast water is taken on board when active VHS outbreaks are occurring.
Can VHS be spread by birds?
VHS cannot be transmitted through the feces of birds that eat infected fish. The virus is inactivated in the birds' gastrointestinal track and does not survive the birds' high internal body temperature. The European strain of VHS can survive on the feathers or feet of birds feeding on a pile of infected fish or sitting in water containing the virus, so theoretically, a bird could move the virus to nearby waters but practically, it would take repeated trips of birds from an infected lake to another waterbody to transfer enough virus to create the concentrations of the virus needed in the water to infect fish.
What can provoke a VHS outbreak and will fishing restrictions be greater during these times?
There are two important factors that can influence the severity of a VHS outbreak: water temperature and stress. The European strain of the virus grows best in fish when water temperatures are 37-54°F and most infected fish will die when water temperatures are between 37- 41°F. We do not yet know the temperature ranges for the Great Lakes strain of VHS. Freshwater drum and walleye have died when water temperature ranged from 66-70 F.
Any stressors, including poor water quality or lack of food, release the stress hormone, cortisol, which suppresses the fish immune system. Additionally, other hormones related to spawning can also suppress the immune system. This may be why so many of the fish kills in the Great Lakes have occurred just before, during, or right after the spawning period. If VHS is detected in a particular waterbody and a fish population appears to be in jeopardy, fisheries management actions may be taken as appropriate to protect the fish populations.
LOTS to think about in the above fact based information including the potential to limit or even end fishing during the spawn. Face it gentlemen, this has the potential to go WAY beyond worrying about spending more money on minnows. | |
| | |
| Here is a fresh article from about ice angling and VHS from the WIDNR.
Ice anglers adjusting to VHS rules
Strategies to comply but still fish with minnows and dead bait
MADISON – Buy only the minnows you need to fish that day or leave the bulk of them in a container in your vehicle in the parking lot or another location away from the water, bank or shore and return to the vehicle to resupply if the fishing action heats up.
These are some of the strategies that Wisconsin ice anglers are using this winter to comply with new emergency rules aimed at preventing the spread of a new fish disease, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS for short, according to Conservation Warden Tom Van Haren, policy officer for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
“People are starting to figure out ways to deal with the new rules,” he says. “Their minds are starting to click: if I can’t do what I have always done in the past, what can I do?
“Some of these strategies can save a few trips back to the bait store when the fish are biting good, and not require you to drain the water from all the minnows you purchased when the fishing is slow.”
VHS spreads fish to fish, or when infected fish or infected water are transported by people to a new water, so the emergency rules prohibit anglers from taking away water or live fish, including bait fish, from the shore or bank of any lake or river in Wisconsin.
The emergency rules also limit the use of dead fish as bait, which can harbor the VHS virus. Dead fish can be used as bait only on the water it originated from, or on Lake Michigan or Green Bay, (waters where VHS has already been found) or if the bait was preserved by means that do not require refrigeration or freezing.
Here are other strategies for fishing with minnows or other bait fish that comply with the rules:
Waterfront property owners or those staying at accommodations with shoreline frontage can keep their minnows in a bait container attached to a dock or boat on that waterbody, with their name and address clearly marked on the container when left unattended. As long as the minnows are not being transported away from the water, bank or shore they may be kept live for later use on that waterbody. This option will not always be available in winter when the waters are covered with ice.
Ice anglers can submerge a bait container under the ice of a permanent ice shanty and can then use those minnows at a later date on that waterbody. Remember, however, that ice fishing holes can be no more than 12 inches in diameter or square.
Anglers who don’t use the previous strategies and who have leftover minnows must drain all water out of all containers, including those holding their minnows, before they leave the bank or shore and may not attempt to revive the fish later. If there is a trash can at the boat landing or access point, they may be able to dispose of the minnows there. Otherwise, they can take the minnows home and dispose of them in the trash or compost them or use them in a garden. Another option: water-free, dead minnows can be taken home and chemically treated and then used at a later date.
Anglers can still trap their own minnows for use as bait, but may not transport any such live minnows away from the water where caught. All minnow traps must bear the owner’s name and address and must be checked and the contents removed at least once every 48 hours. The possession limit for minnows is 600 unless you are a licensed bait dealer.
Bait dealers can apply for a wild bait harvesters permit, which allows them to transport live minnows away from a water body. However, anglers tempted by this option should understand that they will need to file paperwork describing exactly where and when they will be harvesting to get the permit, keep records of where the bait ends up, and have a qualified veterinarian perform a health inspection of the minnows before any of them can be used. No minnows possessed by fishing with hook and line equipment may be transported away from the water where used live.
A brochure that answers more of the questions anglers have asked about the new rules is now available online. http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/documents/vhs_baitanglers1107legal.pdf
VHS is not a threat to people or pets but it’s a significant health fish health disease and can cause fish to bleed to death. VHS has demonstrated in other countries and Great Lakes states the potential to cause large fish kills, long-term reductions in wild fish populations, and severe economic impacts.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Van Haren (608) 266-3244
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| "In the Great Lakes, efforts need to be directed to the movement of large amounts of ballast water by cargo ships, especially in cases where ballast water is taken on board when active VHS outbreaks are occurring."
One of the largest players in the expanding horizon of exotic invasive species has been Salty going vessels on the Great Lakes. The DNR has been saying this for years. Yet, here we are 2007, still have saltys dumping ballast water in the Great Lakes.
Minnows...I've heard so many guys say they're not gointg to kill their minnows at X amount of money. This is a capitalistic society, we operate on money, pure and simple. Much like a cow is to food.
Kind a like the speed limit, it's illegal to do 60 mph in a 55mph speed zone...but hey everybodies doing it, right? | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Gander Mountain Guide brought a topic of interest here, and makes a good point; if you get caught transporting bait off the lake live and in a bucket or livewell of water, it will cost you about $600.00 in fines. It's the law, agree with it or not, and I'll not take the chance for several reasons, not the least of which is financial.
Here's a flyer by the DNR my son Keith is distributing in his work.
Attachments
----------------
 IMG04.JPG (197KB - 138 downloads)
DSC_0002.JPG (105KB - 133 downloads)
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | From top to bottom, this might be one of the toughest to abide by and enforce fish and game rules/laws to come along in a long time. Used to be pretty easy for the majority of years I've been fishing. Don't keep fish to short or any over your limit. And if the gradual spread of the Zebra Mussel taught us anything, it was that it is indeed almost impossible to keep these kinds of things from spreading. And all of you who have read other threads on this board concerning VHS, know I have a small grasp and a major concern about the final prognosis of this VHS problem.
But the bottom line is this. I never liked going 55 MPH back in the late 70's. Never liked stopping at those stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, where I never seen another vehicle coming from any direction. Really hated putting on my seat belt every time I got in the truck. All these rules/laws were supposedly enacted to either save me from myself or save a resource we all use. My personal view of each one and how often I broke these rules/laws was indeed my own choice and responsibility. And I could/would always site just how silly I thought each one of these rules/laws were when I was handed the citation.
I still think some of the these things on the books are silly. But since I've aged, I at least see the value of trying to change the perseved course of a train wreck if I possibly can. And if my example (rather seen when with others, observed from a distence, heard or written about in even the smallest forums) helps others make their own responsible decisions to help out, then I at least tried contributing to the solution and not the problem.
Edited by walleye express 12/20/2007 8:55 AM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| DNR Warden: Hey hold it right there... where did you get those minnows from? Fisherman: I purchased them from the guy in the bait shop at the boat landing 10 feet behind you. DNR Warden: I saw you approach your boat with a bucket and then turn back and walk 5 feet to the cab of your truck.. what are you trying to hide? Fisherman: Nothing officer, I just forgot my cigarettes in the cab. DNR Warden: Don't talk smart to me young man, I saw you clearly trying to transport minnows away from the shoreline, now turn around and put your hands on your head and don't try anything funny like dumping your minnows on the shoreline. "Waterfront property owners or those staying at accommodations with shoreline frontage can keep their minnows in a bait container attached to a dock or boat on that waterbody, with their name and address clearly marked on the container when left unattended. As long as the minnows are not being transported away from the water, bank or shore they may be kept live for later use on that waterbody. " PLeeeease..... Have I just stepped into a parallel universe?? Have we seriously lost all common sense? After reading the links Larry attached, I now realize that anytime you step near the water, you are now breaking the law in some way and we will all have to have an environmental Attorney accompany us any time we venture near the water. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Purple.
Your going to have to do something even I still have trouble doing. That's trusting that the C.O. will consider that these new laws are very confusing, and will use some common sense and the discretion he's allowed in his assessment of the facts and determining your true intent of the violation as he sees them. Nit picking or entrapment in the fashion you described, would be very bad press for DNR law enforcement and wouldn't look so good on or in the paper. I reasonably cannot see it getting that bad. Or at least lest I hope not.
Edited by walleye express 12/20/2007 12:15 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | It's not going to be easy to enforce, but abiding by the law will be pretty simple. Keith explained that the wardens here will be strictly enforcing the laws, and the 'line of demarcation' so to speak will be the edge of the water; at least here in Northern Wisconsin.
If you keep extra bait in the truck, it's be obvious where it is and what you are doing. Some latitude will have to be allowed because of the proximity of parking to the water on some lakes and rivers.
Simply put, after you cross the line at water's edge with your bait, before you cross that line back to land, your bait buckets need to have dead bait and no water in them. Same with livewells and fish, fish in buckets, etc. Most anglers will simply want to dump the bait on the ice, which is also not acceptable and one of the biggest sticking points in the law, IMHO.
So it's not hard to abide by the law. Buy fewer minnows at once. If you think you might need more bait later in the day, keep some in a cooler in the truck; at least in the cooler weather periods. Make sure you empty your bait containers of water and kill any remaining bait before you leave the lake. it's easy for the enforcement folks to determine if you are going out on the water, or returning form fishing to load up. If you are pulling the boat out, your bait needs to be dead. All fish harvested that day, too. I'll be going to iced coolers for my fish next summer, I guess, just to avoid the hassle of using and emptying COMPLETELY the livewell.
Is it a silly law? Depends on what you know about VHS and what your perspective is on the cost of bait VS your personal commitment to the health of the fishery. 40% of the available adult population of Muskies were killed by VHS on St Clair last year. If I can assist in avoiding that sort of kill on walleyes, muskies, and other gamefish by abiding by the law, I guess I will do that even if it seems silly 'out of the box'.
I can guarantee one thing; if VHS shows up and smacks the population of gamefish in any lake in Wisconsin, the howling from the public that the LOCAL DNR DID NOT do enough to protect them from disaster will be just as loud or louder than the indignation at the new laws. Hard to win, if you know what I mean.
PS has a point that the law as written seems to invite accidental or at least unintentional infractions, especially by shore fishermen. Complicated is way too simple a term.
| |
| | |
| Don't forget the third bait bucket to transport your minnows from the truck to your group on the water. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | All you need to do is make sure when you hit shore to go get more bait is that your bucket in the boat is empty. No need for a third bucket if you're out of bait.
How about a little Devil's advocacy here:
What would you have the DNR do to slow the spread of this disease? Should livewell water and fish, bait and bilge water be allowed to transfer from Bay of Green Bay, for example, to Lake George down the road from my house? Especially if VHS is known to be a problem in the Great Lakes? I know of several folks who fished Bay of Green Bay this fall and then fished lakes around my house and transported bait and water between the two. Should nothing be done at all, or should all possible measures be taken to protect the fishery from VHS piggybacking in on fishing boats?
Admittedly, there is not yet even consensus how transfer of the virus takes place. Maybe this will change as the scientists dealing with the issue learn more about the disease and transmission.
Keep in mind the bilge, cooler/baitwell, and other compartment draining regs apply to ALL boats, even jetskis. Will power boaters be as conscious as we are? No. But I'll make darned sure they are aware of the law I have to abide by as an angler, just because I will want to spread the word, and the 'misery'. The Lake Association Invasive Species folks will also be active, and can and will report violators who openly flaunt the new regs. Try backing in to Pelican Lake with Eurasian Milfoil on your axle, and tell the volunteer checking for exotics to buzz off. The warden will be visiting, and soon. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| I'm trying to relate how this will affect the average guy who fishes the Wolf or Fox river in Spring.... keep in mind, I don't ice fish and I have a 5 year supply of flies I'ved tied so I have a lot of time to think.
I still don't understand why you have to regulate the end user of minnows if you already have stringent regulations on the bait dealers.
Isn't the water in the bait bucket we are worried about and not the bait... and if so, how does dumping the water from your bucket which came from an unknow source help the situation.
They better not start messing with crawlers or they will have an army of guys from the NCA protesting in Madison and things could get ugly.... | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Here's the scenario, PS:
I buy suckers in Rhinelander from a VHS free certified source. I then go fish the Winnebago system, adding that water to the suckers in my livewell or bucket to 'keep them alive'. Then I leave Winnebago, and go to Pewaukee, and in the process of 'keeping my suckers alive' I dump most of the Winnebago water into Pewaukee exchanging fresh for not fresh water in the bucket or livewell/baitwell. Then, I dump the remaining suckers in Silver on day two, and they are infected by the virus in Winnebago...I've infected Pewaukee and Silver in two days.
Bank fishing can present a similar scenario.
You are dead on about the Crawlers... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Shame on you, Steve. infecting two places in two days .....but yes, it's that easy.
"I know of several folks who fished Bay of Green Bay this fall and then fished lakes around my house and transported bait and water between the two. Should nothing be done at all, or should all possible measures be taken to protect the fishery from VHS piggybacking in on fishing boats? "
The knowing somebody else is doing it part is just like knowing someone that double dips and takes two limits. It happens, people know people who do it, but nohting gets done about it. I dont know a simple solution, wish I did. But it's here and it's going to spread and we'll have to learn to adapt. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | True enough sir. by the way, the folks I was taking about fished both bodies of water before the emergency regs went into effect. At as much as $5 a pop, suckers are going to be in premium demand next year since we have to kill them before moving to another lake, and buy a new supply every day. Oh well, I enjoyed the sport for a couple years, back to gliders until ice-up. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | This is going to sound a little childish, but I always liked the idea of dumping my living unused portion of minnows back in the drink. Most (if not all) were/are native to and taken from the same waters I fish anyway's. I always figured the ones that were left in the pale after a days fishing earned the right to be set free. Kinda like winning the lottery if you will. They would at least stand an even chance of living, feeding hungry predator fish species in those same waters or maybe even reproduce in their new surroundings. I'm still kinda glad we in Michigan don't have to start crushing heads of unused bait yet. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Ah, now it's crystal clear.....I know where VHS came from, Saginaw bay and Dan's bucket! | |
| | |
| Dan, what you said is not to far from the truth, Dumping live bait back in the lake has been illegal for many years in WI, hardly enforced but still illegal. There are plenty of guys out there that continue to dump live bait in the lake when they are done. and some double dippers for sure.
Maybe some don't know the rules but more importantly knowing why that rule was created for in the first place might give insight to those that refuse to follow this new rule.
Simply put the DNR creates these rules not to earn revenue or piss off anglers but rather to educate and assist us in becoming more concientious about our own behaviors so we can be stewards of our sport! Disobeying them is just silly, when really the glass is half full, not empty.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "40% of the available adult population of Muskies were killed by VHS on St Clair last year."
Do you have a link for an article that talks about that? I had heard an estimate of around 5000 fish but I would have guessed that number to be far less than 40% of the population. I'm not saying your wrong, just that I want to learn more.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Jayman, hardly doubt that VHS started in saginaw Bay, there pollutants are like no other. VHS cannot get a start there, hahahahahaaa | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Here's an interesting Read.
Jayman you'll find it very interesting:
http://www.stopvhsfishvirus.com/GeneralInfo.html | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Brad B,
That estimate came from Larry Ramsell's fisheries biologist source over there, and has been widely quoted this year. I think there's a reference to the totals and the source information on MuskieFIRST.
5000 muskies represents a massive number when considering Muskie year class survival and average population densities, even on LSC.
A strong trophy muskie population is frequently less than one fish per acre, and the upper portion of the population represents a small fraction of that number. | |
| | |
| Thanks Dennis that is a VERY compelling article to dispose of bait, If MN is considering eliminating live bait I am even more compeled to understand if we could have done the same thing or better yet why didn't we do that?
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Thanks Steve. Much appreciated. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | tyee - 12/20/2007 8:33 PM Thanks Dennis that is a VERY compelling article to dispose of bait, If MN is considering eliminating live bait I am even more compeled to understand if we could have done the same thing or better yet why didn't we do that? Good Luck Tyee Maybe I missed something but Dennis' link doesn't mention anything about a live bait ban in MN nor have I seen any other suggestions of that kind. Can you elaborate on your comments tyee? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | From one of the articles in Dennis's link:
"Smith said one possible directive would restrict the use of bait minnows taken from water known to have VHS-infected fish. Fishermen may be barred from using those minnows in bodies of water that have not had infections reported to keep the disease from being introduced into new areas." | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Dennis, Thanks for the link. Just to clear up the matters, I am well aware of VHS and all the constant cut and paste info on VHS...heck how can ya avoid it on this site?
Here's something I find surprising, and again playing devils advocate, In 2003 VHS was known to exist in St. Clair and Erie. in 2004 and 2005 I fished Erie and the Detroit River in spring (MWC stop). At that time not once were we informed about VHS, it's effects or anythign else about this disease. We were even stopped and checked at the ramps in Port Clinton by ODNR. And not one word was mentioned to us as they inspected our vessels to ensure we were Great Lakes equipment compliant.
We heard more in 2005 in the spring when all the dead Muskies were floating down the river. People talked about the number of dead fish only then did I hear about VHS but still knew very little about it.
I guess the surprising part for me is that it wasn't a big deal at the time of it occuring, atleast I didn't get that impression. Yet here in WI, it almost seems like a knee jerk over reaction to someting we're not sure about. And by the way there is an unbelieveable year class of walleyes coming up on Erie. So VHS is not going to be THEE END.
Just an observation.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Brad B - 12/21/2007 10:02 AM From one of the articles in Dennis's link: "Smith said one possible directive would restrict the use of bait minnows taken from water known to have VHS-infected fish. Fishermen may be barred from using those minnows in bodies of water that have not had infections reported to keep the disease from being introduced into new areas." Thanks Brad. I saw that but that's a far cry from a total ban on live bait. It's not too far from the current WI regs. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Jayman.
Cannot vouch for the St.Clair or Erie, but even though suspected, we here in Michigan could not officially verify that VHS was deffinetly here until last year when they found and determined that fact in Thunder Bay, on Lake Huron. I suspect the DNR people assigned to identify, test for and plan strategies to combat these type things are very few in numbers in every states agencies. Let's face it, invasive's and viruses in the numbers they are coming into the Great lakes now, are overwhelming all the resources of these agencies.
Edited by walleye express 12/21/2007 12:40 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 21
Location: Potter, WI. | My 2 cents worth. Saltys are coming in yet...We don't stop them...Wisconsin Didn't want to spend any money for the eletric barrier in Chicago (I know the feds are funding it now) Were building and repairing lochs on the fox so we can have gobies, quaggs, white perch, ruffe and who all knows what else in are system.. The boat lift will kill all invasives...Whatever! But your gonna fine me $600 for taking my minnows home that I'm going to use on the same lake...Wisconsin DNR what a joke...... Does anyone have any common sense left???? The guy that Contaminites the next lake up north doesn't know the regulations. I would think the best thing to do would be leave it up to the sportsman and educate them that if you use the bait on a VHS water that's the only water you can use it on. You fish the bago system then you can only use your bait on that system or the great lakes. | |
| | |
| Cranky - That was probably the best post I have EVER read on this site.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| From the DNR
"The virus is not likely to be transmitted by residual bilge water or birds. By far, the most likely way in which VHS will be transmitted to another water body is infected fish, with large quantities of contaminated water a distant second"
So what came first the chicken or the egg?
It appears that the biggest concern is of people harvesting bait from infected waters and possibly taking it to other lakes and the only way to prevent it is by having the new rule to kill bait before leaving the shoreline. Now THAT makes more sense than anything else I have heard or read. Weather or not you like the rule you have to agree that any other rule would have resulted in an unenforceable rule that basically becomes a voluntary regulation and we all know those don't work!
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| I believe the point that most have made is THAT killing your bait will be a voluntary regulation and very difficult to enforce. Which "we all know those don't work". | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Tyee,
I would be interested in knowing who or where you got that DNR info from. The readings that I have seen and brochures that I personally passed out last season (from what I believe to be reliable sources say to the contrary. Is this new info our someones opinion?
Here is just one quote:
All VHS viruses can be recovered from homogenates of internal organs, sex products, or urine. Little virus can be recovered from feces. Experimentally, fish can be infected by cohabitation, immersion, intraperitoneal and intramuscular injection, brushing virus on the gills, and feeding virally spiked food.
Fish-eating birds, such as the gray heron, can be mechanical vectors of VHS virus, but passage through the gastrointestinal tract of birds appears to inactivate the virus. The virus does not appear to be transmitted by parasitic vectors or to be capable of replication in insects. In the hatchery environment, mechanical transfer of VHS virus on the surface of animate or inanimate objects presents a substantial hazard. taken from: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseasenotice_fil...
Another quote:
Anglers and boaters can also help prevent the spread of VHS and other viruses or bacteria that cause disease in fish by not transferring fish between water bodies, and by thoroughly cleaning boats, trailers, nets, and other equipment when traveling between different lakes and streams. The use of a light disinfectant such as a solution of one half cup chlorine bleach to five gallons of water to clean vessels and live wells is very effective against VHS and other viruses and bacteria that cause disease in fish. Soaking exposed items such as live wells, nets, anchors, and bait buckets in a light disinfectant for 30 minutes is also an effective method to prevent the spread of a wide range of aquatic nuisance species.
Taken from: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_10950_46202-160980--...
I could go on and on. Most reports see a connection. Again, I ask, is this something new? Most articles that I read are about a year old, so is it possible that this is new research? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Dennis,
It is from Mr. Staggs and is purely the opinion of our DNR at the current time based on what they know I am sure!
How they arrived at that opinion I can only venture to guess that they have access to a bit more data than I. (Possibly that there are more people out thair catching their own minnows than I would have thought?) Either way it is how they are responding to questions!
PS. Lets go ICE fishing I could use a drink!
Good Luck
Tyee
December 19, 2007
TO: Anglers who have contacted us with concerns about VHS rules
Subject: Responding to your comments on VHS rules
Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for your recent communication on administrative rules to control the spread of the fish disease viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). As with all our ongoing efforts to develop policies and rules to manage our critical natural resources, we appreciate any and all input from interested citizens and strive to incorporate this input wherever possible. The Natural Resources Board – which is the Governor-appointed citizen board that sets policies and makes rules for the DNR – met on December 5 to consider final VHS permanent rules. I shared all comments that I received before the meeting directly with Board members so they were aware of your individual concerns before making decisions. In addition, the department held 11 different formal public hearings since May 2007 on VHS rules, and board members publicly discussed these rules at six different board meetings, so they are making their decisions based on extensive public input.
At their December 5 meeting, the NR Board did approve a set of final permanent rules. These rules extend to the entire state requirements that have been in effect in many areas of the state since April 2007. All boaters and anglers are now required to drain all water out of their boating and fishing equipment when leaving the water or entering Wisconsin over land from another state, and are prohibited from moving live fish or fish eggs away from any water without a permit. Emergency rules in effect this spring and summer required these actions only on Lake Winnebago, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River and all connecting waters up to the first barrier impassible to fish. More information about the NR Board’s action and generally about VHS can be found on our website at http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pages/vhs.html.
Many of the comments we have received concern use and reuse of minnows for bait. Many of you have made very reasonable suggestions for ways in which unused minnows could be saved for use on another lake or another day without spreading VHS. During their deliberations on December 5, the NR Board did consider an amendment to the rules which would have allowed people to keep leftover minnows if they had not exchanged water in their minnow bucket and were only going to use them later on the same waterbody. The fundamental problem with this and similar exceptions is that it is impossible to tell if people are complying. There is simply no way to keep track of minnows once they leave the water, and there is no way to know where the minnows that are being taken off the water actually came from. They could have even been netted from the water itself, which would be very troubling if that water had VHS.
We know that the vast majority of anglers care about Wisconsin’s fisheries resources and would certainly follow the rules to avoid spreading VHS. Our experience, however, also shows there are always a few people who disregard the rules. If law enforcement personnel do not have a way to actually identify and catch those few people, those people have little incentive to do the right thing. The NR Board members discussed this issue at length and fully understood that they were choosing between a set of rules that would be less popular but would be legally enforceable and a set of rules that - if everyone followed them - would prevent the spread of VHS but because they are legally unenforceable would essentially be voluntary.
In the end, there were some differences of opinions among NRB members, but they passed rules that would in fact be enforceable. Wisconsin has some of the nation’s best fishing resources and most popular fishing, and NR Board members were unwilling to place these at the mercy of voluntary regulations.
Many of you expressed other concerns with the rules. While I cannot address each of your letters and e-mails individually, I have tried to summarize some of the issues that have been considered in detail and at length by the Department and the Natural Resources Board as part of the development of the rules:
1. The virus is not likely to be transmitted by residual bilge water or birds. By far, the most likely way in which VHS will be transmitted to another water body is infected fish, with large quantities of contaminated water a distant second. It is very unlikely that VHS will be transmitted by water remaining in bilges or pumps after they are drained, or boats and equipment that are just still wet, or by birds or animals. There must be a threshold level of virus particles transferred before fish in another water can actually catch the disease. An infected fish can easily transfer the disease because they are alive and their bodies continually manufacture and spread virus particles - or they can be eaten by an uninfected fish. Contaminated water can spread enough virus particles, but only if large quantities of water are moved. Small amounts of water simply won't contain enough virus particles to infect fish in another water body. Also, the virus does not survive when a fish is eaten by a bird or mammal, so there is no live virus in any animal droppings. It is possible that a bird could carry some virus in the water on its feathers, but again, it is unlikely that enough virus will be transferred to infect fish in another water. So the approach that we have taken is to focus on the most likely vectors which are potentially infected fish and larger quantities of potentially contaminated water.
2. The horse is not out of the barn. There are still thousands of lakes and miles of rivers in Wisconsin that do not have VHS and can be protected by aggressive control measures. VHS has been in Great Lakes waters of New York and Michigan since at least 2005, and so far there are only 3 inland waters in New York and 1 in Michigan that have been infected (please note that state officials in those states believe infected minnows were responsible for all of the inland infections).
3. We will never know exactly which waters have VHS at any given time. Whatever regulation system we have, it cannot rely on knowing exactly what waters are infected with VHS. To date, DNR has tested about 150 lots of fish from around 50 waters statewide. In 2008 we are hoping to expand this to another 80-90 waters. That is the practical limit given our current staffing and available laboratory testing capacity. This level of testing does give us a good idea generally which watersheds have VHS, but with 15,000 lakes and 44,000 miles of rivers and streams, there is no way we will ever be able to definitely tell people exactly which waters have VHS and which do not. That is one of the reasons that the Natural Resources Board has chosen to expand regulations aimed at curbing the movement of live fish and large quantities of water to all waters statewide.
4. No control measures will work unless anglers and boaters know about the threat from VHS. We wholeheartedly agree that public education and information is our best weapon in this fight. In 2007 we did a lot to get the word out including press releases, signs at landings, public information materials, paid advertising on radio and TV, watercraft inspections, direct outreach to reporters, clubs, and anglers, and a comprehensive VHS website (http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pages/vhs.html). And we will continue and expand that effort in 2008.
5. There is no cure for VHS once it infects fish. There is no way to treat minnows to make them safe from VHS. VHS is a fish virus and there is no treatment or cure once a fish is infected. We have provided disinfection procedures for water and equipment on our website, but the concentrations of chemicals or temperatures needed to kill the virus in the water would also kill any fish in the water. The only way to prevent the spread of VHS is to make sure that infected fish are not moved to other waterbodies.
6. Commercial wild bait harvesters, fish farmers, and minnow importers must meet strict fish health inspection and testing standards. Under current DNR and Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection regulations, all minnows available for sale or distribution in Wisconsin will have undergone a fish health inspection performed by an accredited professional. Wisconsin has among the most stringent fish health testing requirements in the US which will ensure that the risk of introducing or spreading VHS or other fish diseases is minimized. The only exception is for anglers who harvest bait for their personal use on the same waterbody which is allowable without testing though the fish may not be moved away from that waterbody. Again, there is more information about wild bait harvesting on our VHS webpage.
Ultimately, all of us anglers and boaters must take personal responsibility to make sure that our recreational activities are not spreading harmful invasive species or diseases. Sometimes it means that we have to take a step back and look at the situation from a statewide perspective, and we may find that the best thing for everyone is to change how we've been doing things in the past. I encourage you to continue to participate in the dialogue on this difficult issue and continue to make suggestions on how to make things better. The Department and the Natural Resources Board do listen to what is being said and try to take everyone's concerns into account when making final decisions. What might not seem like a good idea today may eventually end up being the right solution.
I have attached as Word files, several other informational documents that may be of help in understanding the new rules. If you cannot open them, they will soon be available for viewing on our VHS webpage: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pages/vhs.html
Thanks again for your help and input on this issue.
Sincerely,
Michael Staggs, Director Bureau of Fisheries Management
| |
| | |
| Heres an interesting question?? Does a shore fisherman have to disgard of his/her minnows after a days fishing?? I was never on the water. Whats your take on this one......or do I have to kill all my minnows for fear VHS may spread into my minnow bucket. If we have to clean our boats with a bleach solution then do we have to clean our minnow buckets everytime we are done getting bait!!?? Everytime a new batch of minnows is brought to the bait shop then will the owner have to use bleach solution in his minnow tank.........well looks like its cut bait only for the catfish setliners, cuz you can't go catch bait on some pond or stream and transport it, Surely the flathead setliners will love this!!!!!!!......Well i'm pretty much disgusted......VHS = CWD The advancement in technology and science have no doubtly discovered something that probably has always been around........I'm out!!!!!!! | |
| | |
| Am I wrong in saying the DNR just does not trust the fishermen of Wisconsin? What I mean is why don't they have a law that just states you can not use the same bait in two different bodies of water? Minnows in the spring and winter can last well over a week due to the cold temps. and I just find it stupid and childish that I have to have a second bait bucket in my truck that hasn't crossed the "lake line" that I can scoop backup minnows out of especially when I plan on fishing the same body of water the next day. I realize enforcement of this rule would be hard, but at least it makes more sense. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Shore fisherman,
Yes, you have to destroy your bait. If you are fishing from shore and are using your bait, the theory is you will be exchanging water from the bucket and the water you are fishing.
Take my word for it, VHS has not 'been around' our area for a long time. The first time you see a serious outbreak, I believe you will agree. There are several other diseases that attack our fish in the spring and fall, but VHS has not been one of them until recently.
Flyman, short answer is no, fisherman as a rule can't be trusted not to transfer invasives. Some can and are very diligent, but those who don't care.... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Im my experience the ones who don't care the most are visitors to the area waters or people with no investment of any kind in the fishery.
Example: We have two "Free Fishing Weekedns" that our DNR allows every year. Nobody needs a license to fish during these weekends. It's hard to notice any differnce with the one that takes place in June, because most trash sinks in open water. But come out on the Bay after the one during ice fishing time. The trash left on the ice is 10 times more then the regular slobs who don't give a crap. I picked up 2 garbage bags of propane bottles, beer cans and the cartons they came in after one of these weekends. And seen many more trashed areas I drove by on the way in from the Bay. I could only waste so much of mine and my fishing clients time playing junk man. It's a sad shame, but most of us still have to be babysitted for the betterment of the resource. | |
| | |
| Sorry Steve I will not take your word for it because you have no proof to back it up. Just like I have no proof to back up that it has been around for a long time.
If that makes any sense!! My point is these knee jerk reactions to try and prevent something that no one knows a whole lot about are pretty frustrating to the sportsman. Even though for the best....they are frustrating!! Well I'll get off my soapbox now and get back to trying how to invent some sort of artificial live fish that I can sell to catfish setliners!!! I'm gonna be rich I tell ya rich!!!!! | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | VHS has been tracked across the Great Lakes and into waters in Michigan, and now Wisconsin. The fish kill of THOUSANDS of adult muskies last year in MI and Canadian waters was pretty conclusive; that had never happened before and VHS is not that hard to identify; VHS was the culprit.
There is a paper that will be published that takes VHS into context while arguing for additional regs on Bay of Green Bay. This work references nicely the VHS outbreaks, etc to date. When I have the author's permission, I will link that work for you. it's darned conclusive, and provides all the 'proof' I need.
I for one will not discount the importance of doing everything I can personally to reduce the spread of this virus, and until better regs that are less restrictive are the law, so be it. | |
| | |
| You know what is also ironic about this, is Green Bay has been bolstering its musky population over the course of the last 10 years and from what I understand they are the most subjective fish to the disease. So we as fisherman are surely setting up ourselves for a natural disaster. All the money and resources pumped into this one resource only to be toppled. If your saying VHS was something never here before then surely it is in Green Bay already because little lake butte des mortes has had a confirmed case already!!! Cripes the press that one loley sheepshead got on television one would have thought there was some sort of mass crisis in the fox valley. Imagine what will happen when about 500 to 1000 dead muskys are found in the lower bay. Fish that are not even native fish, all stocked. My gosh i know people that will want to have funerals for these fish!!!
Let me ask you this Steve if your so certain that VHS was never here before on Lake Michigan, Green Bay, Winnebago system.........Have we then ever done extensive testing for the disease on these waters??? Did anyone have any sort of understanding of it back in the 80's 90's. There is just to much uncertainty and one mans documention doesnt answer how long the virus has been around the wisconsin waterways? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Shore Fisherman:
Please do not take my question as a negative reply. It is meant only for understanding.
Let's say that we have what I would call a worst case scenario for the Winnebago Chain of Lakes. Let's presume that it's ice out and our worst fears are realized. With the ice barely off the lakes we all start to see massive amounts of floating dead decaying fish. Now the newspapers start to report that DNR crews have collected some of the dead fish for testing and have confirmed that these fish do indeed have the virus. Many of us are shocked and disgusted. Sportsmen are up in arms and worried about he future of our prized fishery.
Am I to assume that you and some others reading these threads will come back and say that there really isn't anything to worry about? That we have had these types of die offs before but now the advanced testing that we have are putting a name on it?
Are you suggesting that we just accept it? That we say it's okay, mother nature will takes care of this like it has before? Or should we as sportsmen applaud the steps that the DNR is taking to help prevent the spread?
Or are we to accept the fate of all lakes in Wisconsin (as I think some are suggesting on this site) and say there is nothing that we can do in the long run? All good intentions from us or the DNR are useless? Those not knowing the rules or do not care will spread the disease anyways? The inevitable will happen regardless? Might as well sit back and let it take its course? After all, remember its been here forever anyways, we just gave it a name.
Please help me clarify your position. Am I close to your reasoning? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I have been trying to find certain info, maybe someone has it.
In reference to The die off of muskies in michigan. The question.
After the initial die off over there, was there a follow up die off as well? Or is this a one time shot of VHS that kills them and then its all over?
Thanks for replys that give links to scientific evidence. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Denny:
I believe that this answers your question.
Has VHS Isolate IVb caused mortalities in the Great Lakes? Yes. In the eastern
part of the Great Lakes Basin, a large scale mortality of freshwater drum occurred
in 2005 in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario in Ontario. In the spring of 2006,
large fish mortalities were observed in Lake St. Clair (Great Lakes muskellunge,
gizzard shad and yellow perch), St. Clair River (gizzard shad), Detroit River
(Great Lakes muskellunge and gizzard shad), Lake Erie (west basin -freshwater
drum and white bass, and central basin-yellow perch), Lake Ontario (round goby)
and St. Lawrence River (Great Lakes muskellunge). The mortalities in the spring
of 2006 are considered to be one large-scale fish kill event.
Fish kills in Lake Huron - Thunder Bay (lake whitefish and walleye) and Conesus
Lake NY (walleye) that occurred in the fall of 2006 were likely related to VHSv.
Additional large fish kills were seen in the spring of 2007 in Lake Winnebago WI
(freshwater drum), Budd Lake MI (black crappie, bluegills and largemouth bass),
Lake Ontario – Hamilton Harbor (common carp), and eastern Lake Erie NY
(gizzard shad). Repeated fish kills in locations with previous fish kills have not
been seen to date in the Great Lakes region.
The whole article comes from: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Viral-Hemorrhagic-Septicemia-...
It's great reading and is dated August 1, 2007 from the Michigan DNR. I now personally believe that they have been doing a better job at keeping abreast of this problem then our own DNR. As an example, they still believe that the transmission of the virus by water is a real threat. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 201
Location: Colgate, WI | Now I am really confused. I just came back from Eau Claire WI. I took my boys up crappie fishing. My uncle owns a convenient store that services anglers too. I asked him what he thought of the law and he said he is so confused and he wishes the DNR would have researched their solution better before putting it into certculation. I read the brochure that the DNR gave to him to hand out and it reads to me that you are only suppose to kill bait from Bago and Green bay. When my uncle asked the DNR person to clarify he seemed very unsure on exactly what the law truely is. I agree we need to all do our part, but I think they really need to research their law and have a concrete plan of how they are going to get the rule across to the people. There were no signs at the launches and when I brought it up to the locals they had no idea what I was talking about. My uncle was not instructed to tell his patrons anything and he was cautious not to say anything because he was afraid of giving wrong information.
Thanks!!
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Dennis, I don't quite read what I am asking.
So, there were kills at places like bud lake Michigan. Has there been another kill since then?
OH, and by the way, I used to live 15 miles from Bud Lake Michigan and can tell you, that lake is a inland resort lake that is 100% different than the rest of the places listed. Not the size of a shawano but more like a gilbert in waushara county. That one doesnot fit the mold here.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | I thought you were asking if there were additional fish kills after the first one? They say repeated fish kills in locations with previous fish kills have not been seen to date in the Great Lakes region.
A follow up opinion:
I'm reading into this a little but they believe that one of the major contributors to the fish kill appears to be when fish are in high abundances, and congregate or concentrate in specific locations. It's therefore logical to believe that a following year fish kill would be difficult because the fish are no longer in high abundance. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| Does anyone remember the massive die off of shad last spring... the dead shad were a 1/2 mile wide and 5 miles long all along the East shore of Bago. It was the first time I had ever seen anything like it. Is anyone now saying that it was due to VHS or are they still claiming that this occurs every year on bago.
For anyone that was on bago the week that the sheephead were flopping all over the place just befor they announced vhs, it was surely something to remember. I got off the water one day and just knew something was not right. There were thousands of dead fish in the Menasha River, something I had never withnessed before and it looked like the whole lake was dead.
Should make for an interesting Spring.
Purple Skeeter | |
| | |
| Sunshine,
I did not take your response as negative and I hope no one takes my statements as negative. I'm just trying to make people aware of the uncertainty that still exists around this disease and the possiblities it poses. Trying to keep people thinking outside the box from what they here from some uneducated news caster tells them. I recall fishing merc nationals about in about 2002 and there was literaly thousands of whitebass dead all over the place. No one really ever said anything about it...just acknowledged there was a large fish die off. What was it?? I do applaud the DNR for such stingy rules to stop the spread if indeed this is something that never was in our wisconsin waterways before. But I'm not convinced when fish biologists are learning how to test for VHS for the first time...then claiming that certain dead fish have the disease.
As far as my stance well.......I'm a skeptic lets put it that way. But I also am concerned for the well being of our natural resources and this is a good way to vent my frustrations with all the new rules!!!!
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Thanks Shore Fisherman !!!
Our views are not that far apart. I do agree about the learning curve associated with our own DNR. I also know that those screaming now about the new regs would be the same people complaining that nothing was done if/when we see major die offs this spring or in the future.
Nice post. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | As I understand the virus, VHS is largely a cool water pathogen. It strikes in the early spring, and doesn't do much harm in warmer water, so with water temps where they are in June, I think the threat from a VHS outbreak has passed for the summer. If there's a VHS kill, it will be early; at least that's what I understand.
Believe me, when there's a large fish kill anywhere, the biologists are on it, trying to figure out what happened. Call your local fisheries manager and ask the questions you might have, they do answer the phone and are willing to talk in most cases.
I read the handout my son is distributing from the DNR, and it's pretty clear you can't transport live bait or live fish from one water body to another. Cross the water's edge or fish that water body, and you must kill the bait AND all kept fish. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Dennis,
That is what I was questioning. As you said, you may have wrote into it and I applaud your honesty. This is my follow up question.
If the virus attackes one time and then its over, and please, don't drag me through glass on this one, How much harm could this do to a population of fish?
Maybe it is mother natures way of saying, "Hey, there are to many fish in this area of a certain type, and we need to thin them down before they take over the whole waterway". Think about all the muskies that died at st. clair. They were a population that was started by man. They are the ultimate water wolf. We shot wolfs years ago and ...... well, I think you have my point.
Not Always looking to stir the pot, just put it on simmer.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Sound bites from reports that scare me.......
While the exact timing is impossible to determine, it is highly likely that the virus
will be found throughout lakes Huron and Michigan in the next 2-4 years. This is
based on the large scale fish movements, particularly Chinook salmon, between
lakes Michigan and Huron, and long distance movement within each lake by
Chinook and coho salmon along with walleyes and other prey species. If fish continues to be the key movement vector, the virus will likely take a long time to
get established in Lake Superior as fish movement through the Soo Locks is limited.
This situation could rapidly change if the key vector is ballast water exchange.
Duluth Harbor in Western Lake Superior has the second highest ballast exchange
rate in the Great Lakes and the Chicago area also has a very high ballast exchange rate. The virus could quickly be spread by this vector if the virus can remain alive for sufficient time to be transported by this method. If anglers and boaters also decide not to comply with the regulations in place in the region and move infected fish or water, the situation and distribution of the virus could also rapidly change. Anglers and/or recreational boaters are the likely mechanism.
It is important to note that the virus distribution in lakes Michigan and Huron is very spotty at this time indicating that the infections are recent and only slowly moving in each lake. Lakes St. Clair and Erie have the virus broadly distributed throughout them
There are no treatments at this time to stop horizontal (fish to fish) transmission or
to treat infected fish.
It is very unclear what the long-term risk is to our Great Lakes and inland fish
stocks from this pathogen as susceptibility and virulence studies have not been
done on this isolate. It can clearly cause large scale mortalities in susceptible fish
populations. The potential long-term outcomes range from being a short term 1-
time mortality factor to a pathogen that causes annual mortalities that will need to
be factored into fisheries management plans. It also appears that there are a wide
range of potential carriers for the pathogen which will need to be factored into
fisheries management options. There is no doubt that this pathogen will always
be an opportunistic disease agent in the Great Lakes region that will cause fish
kills in the right conditions when fish populations are stressed.
Since this pathogen can clearly cause large scale mortalities of valuable adult fish and it has a wide range of potential carriers, it is critical to make every attempt to contain the pathogen and not allow a rapid spread of the disease to all Great Lakes and inland waters. It should be noted that once a pathogen gets into a wild fish
community, it is impossible to effectively eliminate it and control is highly unlikely.
The good news..........
It is important to note that not all fish that are exposed to the virus die and many are capable of fighting off the disease.
Repeated fish mortalities have not yet been documented in locations that had seen
earlier VHS related fish kills. It is not known at this time how smaller inland lakes will respond to VHSv. We also do not know whether the virus will skip years or the role of environmental variables such as climate in causing the disease to be expressed.
It is also unknown if standard salmonid egg disinfection techniques will work on coolwater fish eggs (walleye and muskies are examples) as their egg fertilization process requires the use of de-clumping agents that may interfere with the disinfection agents. This and other basic pathogen information will take time to develop and will greatly inform management decisions.
Edited by Sunshine 12/28/2007 12:27 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Sunshine
The good news..........
It is important to note that not all fish that are exposed to the virus die and many are capable of fighting off the disease.
Repeated fish mortalities have not yet been documented in locations that had seen
earlier VHS related fish kills. It is not known at this time how smaller inland lakes will respond to VHSv. We also do not know whether the virus will skip years or the role of environmental variables such as climate in causing the disease to be expressed.
I'm just a little skeptical of some of the good news.
(It is important to note that not all fish that are exposed to the virus die and many are capable of fighting off the disease).
I'm assuming the exposed fish capable of fighting off the disease would be fish in excellent physical shape. Healthy, un-stressed, well fed specimens. Hard to find in general and probably not the majority of any population I'm thinking, let alone during the spring when forage is scarce and everything they do (including their spawning cycle) is inherantly stressful.
(We also do not know whether the virus will skip years or the role of environmental variables such as climate in causing the disease to be expressed.)
Living in areas that historically have very cold water and ice cycles. And being told of the pathagens proven preference for spreading in these colder temps, I'm kinda lost (but willing to learn) about what they mean by environmental variables.
Edited by walleye express 12/28/2007 1:18 PM
| |
| | |
| Jayman, "just to clear up matters", why make such a flippant remark about Sunshines link and the cut and pasted info? If you are so well aware of VHS, then why be so vacuous in your posts about it.
Links such as are posted and the cut and pasted material from accredited sources are needed and guys like you are the most important targets of this information. Not because you are uneducated, but because you are a voice that is heard, someone who is out there communicating with other anglers. Like Dennis and others said, we may not like or understand the rules but as sportsmen, we should do what we can to follow them. | |
| | |
| Hey guys
I came across your site and would like to add something. I am actively involved in the fishing industry and happen to live on Winnebago. First of all the fish kill on Winnebago was primarily sheephead, in fact mostly sheephead. The large fish kill in the great lakes was in the thousands, take that number and compare it to the actual fish population in the lakes and you get the idea on how small the problem is in the big sceme of things. This is exactly like CWD, it is blown up larger than it needs to be. The DNR did nothing to prevent CWD until it was knocking on our door and they still are doing nothing to stop VHS with the ocean going vessels.
Second these new regs will do nothing to stop VHS, they were put into place to slow the spread not stop or eliminate it. Your biggest fear should be the Federal regulations on live bait, not the state. The Federal goverment has inditements agianst many minnow farms right now. If the minnow farms start disapearing like the local bait shops have been doing you're going to see your live bait costs sky-rocket. There is a group in MN pushing to ban all live bait fishing including wax worms. If you think these laws are being pushed just for the VHS you have your head in the sand.
At one DNR meeting the question was asked about live bait left in the truck while out on the lake fishing. The DNR responce was any minnows that get within 4 feet of the shoreline must be killed before leaving the 4 foot area. This even includes if you are launching your boat and your minnow bucket is in the truck, your truck moves within the 4 feet you must kill the minnows in your bucket before you go park! This rule even appies to the leech water in the containers. You do not have to crush the minnows, just emptying the water from the bucket is good enough. And you must take the dead minnows home to dispose of them.
This is serious, but I'm afraid the DNR is the problem for not being on the ball trying to stop VHS in the first place. After all, they have known about it for 65 years. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | "After all, they have known about it for 65 years." That's news to me. Can you support this with documentation? Or are you referencing the strain mainly found in Europe and Japan? Before mutating, this strain was only found in rainbow trout, Atlantic salmon, and a few turbot. Are you suggesting that DNR personnel from around the country should have prepared for this mutation? | |
| | |
| Hundreds of other exotics out there too, guess we should have banned live bait 65 yrs ago. How in the world does one plan for something like this? Tax the heck out of us to research a cure? Ban use of potential spreading methods? Ban fishing? I know ban boat travel! Your silly to think the DNR is responsible or even remotely at blame. | |
| | |
| REDNECK....Your telling me back in 1943 they determined there was indeed VHS.....UM I don't think so!!  | |
| | |
| All documents involving VHS in the begining state that VHS was discovered in trout farms in the 1940's, the word discoverd does have a meaning. Sorry but yes, the DNR and Enviromental Protection Agency holds the biggest bag of responsability on this. I wouldn't expect something to be done in 1945 but 65 years is an long time to do nothing. This problem entered the country by the east coast and was discovered there a few years before it hit here. By the DNR's own admission on their own website about Lake Michigan:
"Despite these successes, the future of fishing on Lake Michigan is uncertain because the ecosystem is constantly changing. The steady flow of new exotic species, most of which are introduced through the discharge of ballast by ocean-going vessels, complicates our work and places all predictions in doubt."
This is just one example where they know there is a problem but yet do not inact anything to prevent exotics from entering. Salmon are not native fish to Michigan. They were planted there after the fish population was devistated due to mis-management and eels. It is a fast growing and large breeding fish so it fit the bill. Take a look at the fish that live in lake Michigan, then look up to see how many of them are not native to the lake.
I used to live out west and CWD has been out there for decades. It is not a big issue there. Here it's like the world is comming apart. It's the same with VHS. All indications are in Europe that VHS has had the biggest effect in fish farms, not in the wild. Why? Because the the population density is greatest in fish farms, in the wild the fish are not packed together. The virus lives only so long in the water so more fish come in contact with it in farms.
My comment was intended more towards where the industry is going and how it will affect the fisherman. But if you want to concentrate on the number 65 and ignore what is comming down the pipe that's fine too.
As Doug Stange of In-Fisherman told me earlier this year "The average fisherman doesn't concern himself with the politics of fishing until it is too late and it affects him in a negative manner. By then it's too late."
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Redneck - Stop making sense. It hurts my head. j/k
The great lakes strain of VHS is somewhat different then the VHS virus that has been off the coast of the Atlantic for a few decades, but I agree with everything else you said.
Do you have a theory on how VHS made it to Lake Winnebago? I'm waffling between contaminated baitfish getting shipped into the area OR contaminated water in the hulls and water pumps of boats that fished Erie in the spring then discharged those waters to Lake Winnebago/Green Bay.
If the virus truly is much more prevelent in the spring (and not just more active then) it would stand to reason that it would have made it to Bago and Green Bay via contaminated boats or bait as few other bodies of water are open for fishing in April. If it simply were the use of bait from contaminated waters (with no regard for the water temperature from which the bait was caught), I would have expected positives in other bodies of water by now. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "REDNECK....Your telling me back in 1943 they determined there was indeed VHS.....UM I don't think so!! "
Do a little research shore fishermen... he is 100% correct. The virus was identified decades ago in Europe and quite some time ago along the Atlantic coast. The Great Lakes strain is a little different, and no one know for sure when it got here, but there is no denying it has been around for a long time. | |
| | |
| As a side note to show how serious the DNR actually takes VHS on 12/17/07 there was a golden shinner minnow purchased in Menasha that showed all the signs of VHS. The minnow died before the DNR was able to pick it up so it was frozen to be preserved. The DNR picked it up that night. I just talked to the DNR bio. and I was told that the minnow can't be tested unless it's alive and no action was taken to make sure any of the minnows in the tank it came from didn't have VHS.
Two things, you tell me how they know what is killing the fish when the fish need to be alive to test? Second, Explain to me how this is being taken seriously when the didn't even do something simple live quarentine the tank it came from. All the other minnows were free to be bought and fished with all this time. | |
| | |
| Brad B
I'm not sure exactly how it got to Winnebago, there are many ways including Waterfowl carring fish eggs and insect larvae in from Michigan. The Winnebago system is conected to Michigan, it could be very easy for a bird to carry an infected fish or two over the dam and dropped it into the Fox. I am sure it is a multitude of ways it got here. I just don't see a devistating effect that calls for all these new Federal and State regulations. Mother Nature has a way of equilizing everything. The DNR does go to certian lakes and kill off the lake or just a particular fish like bullheads and that is concidered good!? The biggest effect on Winnebago so far has been a killing of sheephead, complaints anyone? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | RedNeckTech - 1/4/2008 12:22 PM
Salmon are not native fish to Michigan. They were planted there after the fish population was devistated due to mis-management and eels. It is a fast growing and large breeding fish so it fit the bill.
Don't want to split hairs, and if my memory allows me, Salmon smolt were first planted by then Michigan DNR supervisor Dr. Howard Tanner in 1966 in Bear Creek, a stream connecting to the Big Manistee, to grow, migrate out to the Lake, then eat and keep in check the Ba-zillion of dying alewives (another transplant) that were spoiling every beach and ecosystem in virtually every Great Lake, save Lake Superior because of it's colder summer time temps. Lamprey EELs, (early 1900's Welland Canal transplants) were actually at their smallest invasive numbers in years during that time in the Great Lakes because they had all but desimated the Natural Lake Trout stocks (their only food source at the time) in all the Lakes as well.
Edited by walleye express 1/4/2008 12:59 PM
| |
| | |
| REDNECKTECH....For the most part I was the one with a knee jerk reaction responding to you as I did. When someone states they have something pinpointed with this virus I automatically want to challenge because of all the uncertainty. I for one feel there is just so much uncertainty like my previous posts state....good luck and I appologize for ignorantly challenging!! Its friday and I'm going fishing this weekend!!!!!! | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| I don't usually go out on a limb and confront anons but Redneck seems intelligent enough, yet seclusive enough that I would like to tap his brain a bit more.
Redneck what should they (epa/dnr) have done ? You are quick to blame them. Where did they go wrong? WI has always had very stringent rules, why is this one so different? We are taking serious actions to deal with it, should they have done this 20/40 maybe 65 years ago and then it wouldn't bother you because you didn't know better? Does it personaly infringe on you or your income now and because you don't like it you look for fault/blame in OUR management? Could they have educated us faster? REALLY what could have been done for something that isn't there?
Many of your comments are very good and I agree with alot of what you are saying, BUT I don't think anyone has the evidence to place blame just yet. I do like the way you vent your frustrations though!
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| I don't mind the question. But to fully understand where I come from and my information I will briefly explain my background.
I help promote new products to the fishing industry and also have invented and co-invented products and lures that are commonly used in the industry. I am also the cartoonist for the largest syndicated fishing cartoon in the nation called Red Neck Tech. One of my closest friends is Gary Snyder, he started Jig-A-Whopper, Bad Dog Lures and Red Neck Teck and also brought Salmo to this country. I deal with two major minnow farms in MN, 8 editors of major publications and I deal with over 350 bait and tackle shops though out the Midwest. I also used to work closely with the DNR with the deer herds.
My comments are stricktly comming from my view behind the scenes in all of the above fields. The DNR has been slow to non-responsive to any threat that comes to this state until it hits and it is too late. When they do respond it is in gross overdose of what is needed. The VHS is an issue but it is not such a threat that there needs to be all this regulations and heafty fines. As I stated earlier, in Europe VHS is a big concern in the fish farms due to the dense population in them but in the wild it has had a min. effect.
One more example on how these laws do nothing is in some of the Indian treaties the state has to transplant sturgeon in to the upper lakes for the tribes to spear. Where do you think they get the sturgeon, Winnebago. I have heard nothing about halting this practice. That along with the ocean vessels ballast dumping going on in the great lakes is more than enough to show the lax attatude towards the real problems.
I suggest actually enforcing no ballast dumping in the great lakes. Not only would this help with VHS but also stop the other invasives from entering. The ballasts have been the prefered transpertation mode of most of the invasive spieces and yet it still continues. It is my understanding also that Lake Michigan has a average temp. that is colder than what VHS normaly does it's damage in. The rules were fine when it pertaind to the great lakes and Winnebago system, but including all waters starting this year is insane.
All minnow farms must test there brew for VHS and thay cannot raise two different types of minnows in the same ponds anymore. This costs the farms about $3,500 a test. This will effect the minnow prices. As long as the tests turn out good there should be no reason that anyone fishing should not beable to take their minnows to Hatch Lake, then go to White lake to fish. The thought in the industry is these laws are more for inceasing revenue than anything else. What is even scarier is the DNR have siad that the laws do not affect wax worms and nightcrawlers...yet. They actually say yet.
From what I have seen in the industry, it scares me. Not the VHS but all the regulations comming down the pipe. You might ask why the DNR would place regulations in effect for the hell of it but then think, why did they go to all the farm fields and proclaim that any drainage ditch that would have more than a foot of water standing in them for 2 days was now a navagable water way and the farmers could not plant crops within 15' of them. How about recently the DNR comming up with regulations about docks being in 3 feet of water and the docks are not for fishing, diving or relaxing?
So in the end, yes, my concern is with the DNR and Federal agencies. I'm looking at it from a complete industry standpoint.
RedNeckTech | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| "The DNR has been slow to non-responsive to any threat that comes to this state until it hits and it is too late. When they do respond it is in gross overdose of what is needed."
Do you understand the DNR's rule making authority? I think they responded pretty fast on VHS don't you? Be it a gross overdose or not, how would you have liked them to react? Do you have other ideas? Complaining that they didn't do anything before yet now you don't like what they did?
The rule making process requires a rule that can be enforced, I don't see any other way around this if the intent and concern is about live bait (which it is right now) what would be better? I've seen nothing but complaining about this new bait law and have yet to hear one other reliable solution. This "overdose" as you call it has made it clear that they are serious and concerned about other lakes.
They still have the authority to make rules like eliminating the use of live bait or prohibit the import of such, even prevent the transport of boats from one body of water to another. Maybe close the fishing season on the Winnebago system/Greatlakes untill the regular season opener to prevent the movement of bait and water to other lakes? would those have been better solutions?
"I suggest actually enforcing no ballast dumping in the great lakes. Not only would this help with VHS but also stop the other invasives from entering."
I couldn't agree more, Unfortunately this is Federal not DNR? They have even been forced to make regs. regarding the opening of the locks, they can't stop it and will only take the blame when it doesn't work! Your comments and frustration are evident and I agree but sure don't think sitting around and doing nothing as you have suggested they did in the past would be very appropriate.
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 1/5/2008 7:44 AM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| All these regulations mean nothing if they are not enforced. I do realize the Federal gov. would be the one to address the ballast issue and that is why I include them in my comments. But if the DNR will not even test a minnow bought for bait that has all the signs of VHS muchless not even quarentine the tank until it is found not infected... That tells me there's more to this.
There always have been fish kill offs in one fasion or another. Sheephead have always died in spring and summer (maybe not as large of one as this past year). Mother nature has always found a balance for her own problems, it's when peolple who think they know better get involved and may solve one problem but opens a Pandora's box on many others. Hatch lake in Iola used to have a kill off of northern every spring. To stop that the DNR installed a pump to force air in the lake. Sure, it stopped northern from dying in the spring but it also lowered the panfish because of all the northern and made the weeds grow out of control. Then they killed off all the bullhead which created even more problems. Solve one problem and create three others.
There is no evidence anywhere (including Europe) that convinces me that VHS is a dire issue in the wild, sure it's there and could have been there all this time and just killed in smaller numbers. It is fish farms that have the biggest issue and in Eurpoe it is common. A few thousand fish dying in Lake Michigan is nothing compared to the population. And a mass killing of sheephead is a good thing. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 874
Location: Neenah, WI | Here's what I've been hearing from ice fishermen:
I'm taking my minnows home because I only fish Winnebago. (I can agree with that)
Minnows are too expensive to kill and dump.
The whole VHS thing is overblown.
They've never heard of such a thing and I don't know what I'm talkig about. (I do)
The DNR doesn't check, I'll never get caught.
!@#$ the DNR!!!!!
The whole deal is, if you get stopped you'll pay a big fine. People tend to want to kill the messenger, all I do is hand them a pamphlet and shut up. It'll be interesting to see if we have lots of dead/dying fish after we start cutting sturgeon holes.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | "It'll be interesting to see if we have lots of dead/dying fish after we start cutting sturgeon holes."
Dale - The vast majority of the fish kills have been related to large temperture changes immediately after the spawn. Personally, I doubt we'll see anything of significance, but if we are going to, it won't show up until late may when the sheephead and whitebass are done spawning. Watch the weather - a few calm, 80 degree days when the water is still quite cool might trigger a fish kill, just as it has happened here in the past. The size of the fish kill may be affected by the presence of VHS, but VHS hasn't been a world ender anywhere else yet, so I doubt its going to be one here.
"I think they responded pretty fast on VHS don't you?"
Tyee - NO. Not even close. DNR did very little IMHO until it was too late - when VHS was already here. VHS was present in Lake Erie for several years and I don't remember seeing anything regarding it until after a few sheephead tested positive for it last spring. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Maybe VHS won't be the silver bullet that wipes out vast stocks of our game fish Lakes wide. Maybe it's over blown. Maybe it's going to die on the vine like a few others viruses mentioned. I sincerely hope it does.
My real personal, present concern is how long and at what cost will this fact finding mission could take. And what it's long term impact could be both on bait businesses along with the artificial taking, hatching and planting of walleye eggs and fingerlings in mine and other areas. We've been living high on the hog in my area these past 4 years with viable record natural reproductions and great young of the year survival rates. So the last 3 scheduled DNR walleye plantings were canceled, and in essence were not needed. This whole run of good luck for us walleye anglers has been at the expense of Lake Huron's Salmon fishermen and was because of Lake Huron's alewive collapse. Because of their massive absence, they are no longer gorging on and decimating the walleye naturals as they smolt out of our rivers and take their place in the ecosystem of the Saginaw Bay.
But with no proven formula to inoculate walleye eggs against VHS, and not wanting to risk the virus ever getting into the hatchery system, planting walleyes in case of future low natural reproduction years is no longer an option. Now let this virus kill off a bunch of what we have in the Saginaw system right now, with no means to replace them period, and I feel like all our waterways have been diagnosed with cancer and the prognosis is still up in the air. Nobody just has a small case of cancer. And as we all know, only the people with cancer are willing to do anything they have to just to stay alive. And I'll never fault them for doing so.
Edited by walleye express 1/6/2008 1:09 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Brad, The Three "E's", Education Education Education. More than 2 years ago we were having discussions ahere bout keeping the locks closed. Being Federal, the DNR has little to say about that.
I know the DNR was informed to start speaking about VHS and invasives prior to Winter 06 for the 07 season. In fact in March it was Kendals' main topic of discussion at the Ice breaker. We didn't know it was here formally until May '07 so really I ask again what could they have done? Do you know something I don't? Do they have some sort of political arm in the legislature that I don't know about?
ALL they talked about in Late '06 and '07 was VHS and other invasives! I think this is pretty quick, considering our locks to the great lakes are closed and the first signs of VHS in the US were in the great lakes in the spring of '05.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | I follow the DNR webpage and actually read my regulations. I remember no mention of VHS until last spring. If this was such a huge concern, why not warn the few thousand wisconsin anglers that visit Erie about the potential danger of bringing back such a pathogen? Why not petition the legislature to get some sort of testing program for bait imported into Wisconsin? I saw a few signs at the launches that asked us to remove weeds from our trailors and warnings of exotic species, but I never saw a thing regarding any pathogen, much less VHS.
Simple fact of the matter is, they did very little to NOTHING until after it was found in Wisconsin. You say they reacted pretty quick... I suggest they did almost nothing until it was too late.
That said, I don't think VHS is going to be that big a deal in the long term, so I don't think it work arguing over.
One more thing... VHS was first found in the great lakes in 2003, not 2005. The first significant fish kill didn't occur until 2005. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| I jst got off the phone with my contact at the DNR and have a little bit of information that may feed a few minds. About five years ago the State Legislature took the authority to monitor the private minnow farms away from the DNR and gave it to the Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). Now DATCP only looks after the interests of consumer trade and commerce, not wildlife management. They are concerned about bringing in and raising money to the State. The DNR has no control over what comes out of the minnow farms as far as quality of product including VHS, the only thing the DNR is involved in is the stocking permit and the locaction on the ponds and such forth.
He told me it is possible that some minnow farms still might trap some of their minnows and not get them tested and the DNR not only can't do anything about it but also wouldn't know. He did admit that this whole regulation thing probably will do nothing in stopping VHS from speading to other lakes, expecialy seeming there is a wide open door that can't be closed with the minnow farms because of the State Legislature.
As a side note he also told me that the testing of VHS in the game fish and minnows is definatly NOT 100% accurate. Keep that in mind the next time you place a minnow on a hook and toss it in the water, because there is no way of knowing if that minnow even has VHS you could be helping spead VHS.
I will revise my blame comment to include the State Legislature, as they say, if you want to find the reason for anything follow the money. This is all about money for the state. I still say the VHS scare is way over blown though.
RedNeckTech | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Brad, Thanks I always appreciate intelligent conversation! Yes in 2003 VHS was thought to be introduced into US waters I don't know if any water was actually found to have the disease and I know there were no inland waters with it. The interesting thing is that in 2003 the DNR released their comprehensive plan for dealing with invasives and it has been a very important issue for them. I have linked that document for you and others. Pages 19-23 are interesting regarding planning for bait and ballast water and how large a problem it is but the DNR and even the state as a whole are virtually at the mercy of others regarding regulating them.
http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/compstateansplanfinal0903.pdf
It may not be the best plan and doesn't address VHS specifically but at least there was a plan in place as long ago as 2003.
I hope your right and VHS fizzles out in time with little consequence.
I have been discussing this topic with many, many fishermen and am amazed at the number of people that still don't know anything about VHS much less the new regulations on bait transportation. I'd bet it's close to 1 in 5!
Good luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Doc, I think the only one that seems to be offended by my flippant remarks are you. Notice the smiley at the end of my post?????
I wasn't cutting down Sunshine or disrespecting him in any way. as for the cut and paste there are a good number of people that are very good at cutting and pasteing what they find on the internet. It doesn't always mean they know what they are talking about. Is it wrong to questoin that? ( and no Dennis I wasn't questioning your info, I think you and I have that understanding)
For you to cut down on "outside" thinking would suggest your a sheep with in the flock and mearly a follower. Feel free to judge my character, but sorry I don't think the DNR is gospel.
My point all along is this is a stupid rule/law that lacks any common sense and will be next to impossible to prevent the spread of VHS. Much like a speed limit sign stops speeding. It's mearly a "suggested practice". There are much larger problems in the big picture of it all. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Jayman: Just for the record, I had/have no ill feelings about your comment. You are right. you and I have that understanding. I for one, am really enjoying the thread. I get great insight of all perspectives and feelings. It has also forced me to read more into the subject.
Edited by Sunshine 1/8/2008 10:29 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | This proposal has nothing to do with the Walleyes on the Bay, but has excellent graphics on the spread of the disease and the timeline.
I heard several times over the last couple years that VHS had been found in the Great Lakes east of us, and also saw warnings about Erie and St Clair. Several posts covering the disease were discussed on our sister site, MuskieFIRST, quite some time ago.
Look at the numbers of Muskies lost on St Clair last year. This is serious stuff, and I fear it won't just 'go away'. If conditions are right for a widespread outbreak, this virus can be literally devastating to gamefish populations.
I don't see the DNR as 'gospel' either, but attempting to blame the agency in Wisconsin for the spread of the unique strain of this disease through the Great Lakes makes no sense and doesn't get anything positive done. It might make one feel better for a moment, but remember the folks you are bashing read this stuff, and will not then be in a huge hurry to participate in a conversation here on the subject. Believe me, we have a huge body of experience on this issue from working with fisheries managers, biologists, scientists, and other interested parties regarding issues of fisheries management and Muskies. It took almost two years to convince some of the folks reading that site every day who ARE real scientists to trust they could post what they know without a bashfest occurring. That, I think, is a damned shame.
Armchair biologists are a dime a dozen, the real deal scientists have more of an influence as far as my opinions go. If you have a question about this or any issue, the phone numbers are listed for everyone in the DNR, call and have a discussion, you will find the folks there to be people, just like you, who are working to satisfy dozens of competing interests daily in a very tough environment.
One might take care when placing blame to have all the facts. It's uncomfortable and difficult to be forced take back a rude and insensitive accusation when one finds ones self 'out of bounds' and incorrect, so to speak.
This document is from a group of anglers working with the NRB, the DNR, and the public as an advocacy Coalition to preserve the trophy muskie population in Green Bay. This presentation was made a week or so ago in Green Bay.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/01.08.2008/1277/Green.Bay.... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| "One likely possibility is that VHS will act like many other viruses in the environment. Typically, viruses or bacteria infect fish, which may lead to disease in the fish if they are susceptible. Once the disease is expressed in these fish, a small percentage will die," said Kelley Smith, chief of the DNR Fisheries Division. "The vast majority, however, will survive and will develop immunity to the viruses or bacteria that cause a disease. Since there are no large-scale treatments for VHS that can be applied to fish in the wild, the presence of this new virus may result in spring fish mortalities that are abnormally high for a few years as more fish encounter the virus. These mortalities should abate as fish begin to build immunity to the virus."
This is a quote from the MI DNR about Lake St. Claur on their website www.michigan.gov/dnr
The kill in the year 2006 was 2000 musky to maybe 4000 musky, so lets take the average and say 3000 musky died from VHS in 2006. The musky population of that lake is about 100,00 in the year 2000, that means there was a 3% kill off of musky in Lake St. Clair, not a big number. You add in five years of spawning between the year 2000 and the fish kill it could be a smaller percentage. You add in that for the year of 2007 there were NO muskies killed from VHS in Lake St. Clair. Does this mean that 97% of the population built up an immunity? Very plausable.
Largemouth Bass virus (LMBV) broke out in 1995 and was also detected in MI. There were fish kills similar in form and conditions as VHS and the same tactics as far as regulations were suggested for the control of this virus but it spread to about 20 states. The big difference is there was no large panic button pushed in this case. The virus is still out there but the impact is small and with WI right next door there was no panic spread here.
Why panic about something that is more plausable to eaqual out in nature (as it has in Europe) ? The fish kills have not been as huge as one would think when you look at the numbers. A 3% kill off for one year only is small. If it was a larger number and happening every year, it would be a little different story.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| "One might take care when placing blame to have all the facts. It's uncomfortable and difficult to be forced take back a rude and insensitive accusation when one finds ones self 'out of bounds' and incorrect, so to speak."
Can you please show where anything stated was incorrect? Sometimes the truth is not all that much sensitive. With all the fish viruses and sicknesses out there I would like to see where any of them has had a devastating effect on any fish population in the wild. The only place it has had a devastating effect are in fish aquqriums and fish farms, not the wild. Any place where the fish population has fallen to a noticable level was not due to a virus, it was caused by over fishing and pollution. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Steve -
First and foremost, any criticism I have express towards the DNR is directed at the bureaucracy, not the biologists.
At the risk of becoming very unpopular with you, the presentation made to try to "save" the musky on GB was heart felt, but what they are asking for makes little sense to me. The group cites unknown harvest figures, the potential loss of fish due to VHS, and the social desire to catch bigger fish (just like they do in Canada) as a rationale for eliminating ALL harvest of musky on the bay until the effects of VHS have been determined. What they don't mention is that these fish are already protected until they are over 50 inches, that most musky anglers won't harvest a fish unless it can't swim away from the release, and that the population of GB musky over 50 inches is quite small (based on the numbers I've seen, probably less than 5%). Placing additional restrictions on such a small percentage of the population will not have a significant effect on the population of these fish should VHS become a problem.
The process that started the coalition down this path was not concern over VHS, it was disgust with anglers that choose to harvest fish. I believe that it is some anglers desire to see harvest eliminated, not fear over VHS, that has bolstered support for this group. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | 'The kill in the year 2006 was 2000 musky to maybe 4000 musky, so lets take the average and say 3000 musky died from VHS in 2006.'
The impact of this size a kill, even on Lake St Clair, is VERY significant. I don't have the space or time to explain the population dynamics of the Muskie here and drag in the supporting literature so you know I'm not just slinging stuff, suffice it to say that a kill of adult Muskies in the 2000 to 3000 range will have a significant impact on the system for quite some time.
'You add in five years of spawning between the year 2000 and the fish kill it could be a smaller percentage.'
The spawn hasn't improved by any percentage, pressure from additional Muskie anglers has been increasing (Muskie fishing is one of the fastest growing segments in the fresh water fishing market) and the same number (approx. 30%) of EVERY year class continues to die every year WITHOUT angler mortality OR VHS. Therefore, that water is now working with about 3000 less spawning fish than before the kill in 2006. Do that math, it's significant. A muskie there has to be about 5 to 6years old to be viable.
I'd refer you to the research Board on MuskieFIRST for more information and several sources within our DNR and other states and provinces. ( We have a few biologists who post regularly, because we make sure they have a friendly and reasonable environment to do so). The impact of increasing pressure as the sport of Muskie fishing grows, coupled with kills might have a VERY significant negative impact. Now let's say the virus hits Pelican, where water temps and dynamics lake wide allow for a kill that is as significant or much more so that Lake St Clair where sheer size and dynamics 'help', see comments in the attached PDF. A kill in the double digit percentages or more is possible and in fact probable. Pelican has not been stocked since 1998, and will not be for at least a decade. Since the majority of the fatalities appear to be adult fish, you are looking at the destruction of the desirable population there, and a 'recovery' that is not going to be pretty . I don't think that is a 'panic' situation, it's reality.
3% is very significant, and on Pelican that percentage will be larger if the disease follows it's own MO. It doesn't sound like much until you look at the overall big picture. Infect Pelican and you have a magnified situation over the current regs, right? Why not be PROACTIVE, instead of REACTIVE? On one hand we accuse the DNR of negligent inaction, on the other negligent overreaction. Look at the PDF posted again, and look at the spread of the disease, it's very nicely displayed.
I for one am not delighted I have to kill my bait and my harvested fish, but until such a time where the effects, scope, and overall impact of VHS on Wisconsin waters can be accurately measured I'm for a conservative approach. Read the press releases and flyers, informational pieces and all from the DNR...they openly admit the regs in place now may not be exactly what is needed, and express that the regs could and probably will change as the impact of this disease can be measured.
'Can you please show where anything stated was incorrect? Sometimes the truth is not all that much sensitive. With all the fish viruses and sicknesses out there I would like to see where any of them has had a devastating effect on any fish population in the wild.'
Read all the above posts again, and you will see what I'm referring to; I was not talking about the virus or it's effects; I was referring to the occasional tendency we have to bash one another and the experts in order to try to take a stronger stance when expressing opinion. Not a huge deal in this thread, but bad for debate, IMHO. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| I am in no way trying to bash anyone, I am very involved with the industry and see it in a different light than you do. A 3% kill in one year and no reported kill in the following year, I'm sorry, is not that big. But you did hit on an important element in all this.
"The impact of increasing pressure as the sport of Muskie fishing grows" How much of the hype is comming from the viewpoint that there are an increasing amount of certian fishermen after a particular type of fish and the overall population may not be able to withstand the current harvest levels along with natural elements like VHS. There are two ways to look at this
1) Seeming VHS is most common where there are an abundants of fish then why not thin the herd, by allowing smaller fish to be taken by the ever increasing fishermen, that would decrease the population and slowing drasticaly VHS spread.
2) Stop allowing so many fisherman from fishing the musky. Only allow a certian number to fish, have a lottery or manage it like sturgeon spearing. This would decrease one of the strains on the musky population if it is truley an issue.
What would your reaction be if a new regulation came out stating that there was no fishing allowed during the times the water temputure was prime for the VHS to be active? After all, when you catch an undersized fish and release it, that fish is stressed for a time. Stress is a factor on the spread of VHS. Or to be really safe about it you were no longer allowed to use your boat on waters because ther "might" be a chance of transfering the desease, instead you had to fish from shore.
My issue has to do with the over regulation of fishing. What makes anyone think that the regulations stop here? There is a good possibility that an argument could be made that there is no way to stop the spread of VHS so let's ban fishing all together to stop it.
On almost all the different state's DNR web sites there are statements simmilar as follows:
"Diseases like VHS run their course just as they do in human populations. At first mortalities may appear to be large, but many biologists believe that most fish can survive the disease if they are not otherwise stressed because mortalities generally occur in weaker, stressed fish. The remainder will build up a natural immunity to the virus and the numbers of fish killed by the virus will decline."
I also have a DNR Bio. contact in Oshkosh and and he tells me the same thing. Viruses are nothing new in fish and VHS is acting no different than any other. This virus will run it's coarse and find a happy medium for nature. Mother nature doesn't give a damn about what the fisherman wants, the fisherman will have to adapt to what mother nature provides. No virus has ever had a long term devistating affect in nature, why is VHS different?
Let's face it, the DNR is known for botching things up like eco-systems. Just look at Lake Michigan, it has one huge un-natural eco-systems in the nation. Pretty much every native species that is in the lake is becomming ever so increasingly hard to find, like perch. It is the non-native spiecies that are abundant, and a lot of them the DNR planted in there. There is a good sized group of bio's that say the lake should be brought back to it's natural fish but it is the sport fisherman that is agianst it because they like the salmon, it plays better on the end of the line. This is causing havoc on the lake. The lake needs fish to be planted every year to keep the population. A lake of that size is unable to naturaly support itself due to what? Nature? No, the miss management of the lake. The last I looked the DNR has a huge chunk of that responsability.
Read the effects of the mis-management at the following:
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/wi/010305_great_lakes.htm
I am very confident that this "dooms day" senario is not going to happen. CWD takes out a large number of deer each year but the herd still grows larger, a virus is a virus, it will come to a happy medium with nature, not the fisherman. T
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | I will agree to disagree with you on the impact of the Muskie kill on St. Clair, and defer to the experts there and in the muskie arena, who have repeatedly stated the impact is and was significant.
In response to 1):
Thin the herd? I don't think so. We already have a TAC up here in the walleye arena that holds us to as little as 1 over 15" and 1 under on many waters. I don't think you would find a single scientist (and very few anglers) who would support the idea of harvesting more fish to control the possible spread of VHS. I don't think there is a standard as to population density and potential spread of the disease, and rough fish populations susceptible to the virus will always throw a wrench in that idea.
2) Who said the number of Muske anglers is a 'problem'? I made that point to indicate post CPR mortality will rise; 95% plus of all muskies caught are now voluntarily released. Size limits to protect the upper confidence level 'big fish' are increasing wherever the need arises.
The idea of managing a resource is for the sportsmen and women to utilize it, right? Most muskie anglers are very conservation oriented, anyway. My point was that 3000+ adult fish died, and will not be available to spawn, etc., and added to post CPR mortality, normal mortality, and harvest, the impact will be significant.
Post angler capture stressors are not long lived in most cases, and when water temps are cool, are minimal.
My reaction? That's already reality, for the most part. Muskie season here doesn't open until late May in the north and early May in the south. Water temps are long past the 40's at that point, and the major VHS threat passed. In most cases, all Gamefish seasons open to water temps in the 50's. Bass, for example, opens in June.
The virus is present in the waterways all year long; boat, shore, whatever.
Your issue is over regulation of fishing? Which is it, the DNR doesn't do enough to protect us and our resource, or they do too much? How, exactly, is our fishing over regulated at this point VHS regs aside.
I agree that the impact of this virus may lessen over time on infected waters if this pathogen is dealt with by the population's immune systems as many others have been. Should we then, since it will only kill a certain percentage up front, and decreasing percentages over time, encourage it's introduction? I wouldn't, but that's me. The recovery of the fishery on some waters to levels they now hold could take decades.
'Mother nature' didn't introduce this Virus to our waters. Man did. 'Mother Nature' won't spread the virus, Man will. Virus infections transported around the world to the host by Man have indeed had long term effects, that's obvious in ALL animals, fishes, and other life forms in which viruses thrive. Encouraging by 'excuse' a fresh water Wisconsin pandemic just seems counterproductive to me.
I'm very involved in the Industry too. I've made my living in and around the fishing world most of my life. I fail to see why we shouldn't eventually see the same things in at least a light of better understanding just because we are 'involved'.
'I am in no way trying to bash anyone':
'Let's face it, the DNR is known for botching things up like eco-systems.'
I won't even touch the Perch issue, look to the stringers, commercial harvesters of the recent past and angler's livewells for that problem.
You said it yourself, the Sportsman wants Salmon, and a huge industry revolves around those fish. I see the salmon management by all the states bordering lake Michigan as a huge success by that standard.
Our WIDNR has a form of 'management by public pressure' most other state's DNR agencies can only look at and shudder. The Conservation Congress and Legislature can and do dictate much of our DNR's management philosophy and practices; witness the baiting ban debacle and the C&R 2009 special Muskie season north of Hwy 10.
In many cases, one demands a thing on one hand from the DNR, and blasts them for providing it on the other even to the extreme of enacting new laws superseding those of the DNR as an attachment to the freaking state budget bill.
If indeed the Sportman's interest was stronger for lake trout or Smallmouth Bass or Pike than Salmon, my bet is management goals would shift in that direction. And, your commentary ignores the main driving force behind many of your issues...invasives that MAN brought to Wisconsin waters. If the DNR enacts rules to slow the spread, they are over regulating. If they do nothing, and an invasive upsets the balance and well being of a popular fishery, then they are equally blamed.
Which scenario is real? I submit reality is not even in the middle; our fisheries folks overall are far more capable than I think you give credit for. But again, that's just my opinion...
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| I will also agree to disagree. I am comparing this virus with others that have come. As stated before LMBV was killing mass large mouth bass in a very similar manner. It only is active in a certian temp. and spreads identical to VHS. Compare the fish kill in St. Claire to Fork Reservoir in TX. St. Clair has approx. 807,067,756,800 gal. of water and the fish kill was 2-4 thousand musky. Fork Reservoir has approx. 306,775,682,460 gal of water and they have a large mouth bass kill of 4,800 or about 2% of their bass population in 1998. I talked to a TX DNR bio. Scott Lamford and a 2% or even 4% kill is very, very minor to the impact of a population. In fact he siad that the bass population had a very large rebound groth 2 years later. If the same amount of bass died today it would now be less than 1% of the population.
"Your issue is over regulation of fishing? Which is it, the DNR doesn't do enough to protect us and our resource, or they do too much? How, exactly, is our fishing over regulated at this point VHS regs aside."
My issue is the DNR does not truely adress an issue until it arrives and then the action is regulating the heck out of things.
"I won't even touch the Perch issue, look to the stringers, commercial harvesters of the recent past and angler's livewells for that problem."
This is exactly my point, all the things you just mentioned above are regulated by the DNR. They have complete control on bag limits for sport and commercil fishermen. You cannot discount the alwife for the perch drop also.
I do not see the DNR as being pressured by the public in reality. With the laws they put into place with such things as docks, land usage, farm field drainage ditches and numberous others including deer hunting issues, they do as they please no matter how big the out cry from the public is.
The DNR has it in their control to help with the invasives just as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, part of the MI DNR, made a law to make it illegal for ships to ballest dump in MI waters...that law was up held in Fed. court.
In short, they have the responsability and power to manage our natural resouces. With that, their laps along with the EPA are where the blame falls on things like this. I do not believe they can brush aside the finger pointing, they are the managers. I do trust that if the DNR was an elected office position the reactions to these concerns would be quite different. They are not truely accountable to anyone and they do act like it. Not saying all thing from the DNR are bad but when the actions do nothing to truely deal with the issue, I will call it to the carpet.
There are DNR bios that think these regulations do nothing or will do nothing to stop any virus. These same regs are very close to the ones issued for LMBV and it still spread.
It is great to debate issues like this even if we don't see eye to eye. You do make some valid points, I am looking at this from the supply side of the industry. The feed back I recieve from magazine editors I deal with is not positive as far as these reg. are concerned. I also am seeing the negitive impacts when I'm out on the road.
RedNeckTech | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Redneck, I do like your approach I am still concerned however that the power still belongs to the people and that the DNR unfortunately has to write laws to protect us from ourselves within their power. It is interesting though that the law was on the heals of the opening of the locks here in Appleton. If there was ever a time that a conspirious theory might exist this one might hold water!
Here's the latest
Good Luck
Tyee
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
December 4, 2007
Contact: George Meyer, Executive Director, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Conservation Organizations Call on the DNR to Regulate Ballast Water Discharges from International Ships
Poynette: Today, thirteen state, national and local conservation groups requested the Natural Resources Board and the Department of Natural Resources to require permits for the discharge of ballast water containing aquatic invasive species and diseases from international ships into the Wisconsin portions of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. The organizations petitioning the Natural Resources Board at its meeting today are the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, The Wisconsin Federation of Great Lake Sport Fishing Clubs, the Wisconsin Council of Sportfishing Organizations, the River Alliance of Wisconsin, Wisconsin State Council ofTrout Unlimited, Walleyes for Tomorrow, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Wisconsin Association of Lakes, Winnebago Land Conservation Alliance, Wisconsin Environment and Lakeshore Fisherman Sports Club Ltd..
The request identified that current state law (the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requires that anyone discharging “biological materials” such as aquatic invasive species and diseases into Wisconsin waters requires a discharge permit and treatment for the ballast water. The State of Michigan has previously required such permits for international ships discharging ballast water into Michigan water of the Great Lakes. The request also petitioned the Natural Resources Board to modify any state rules if necessary to go forward with a discharge permit program.
Over one hundred and eighty-six invasive species and diseases have been introduced into the Great Lakes since they have been opened to Great Lakes shipping. It is projected that many of those species have been introduced through the release of ballast water taken on in foreign waters. Such species include the zebra mussel, the quagga mussel, the round goby, the white perch, spiny water flea and possibly VHS. The introduction of these species into the Great Lakes has cost businesses, municipalities and sportsmen and women hundreds of millions of dollars and has significantly threatened the $2.9 billion sports fishing industry in Wisconsin.
“Sportsmen and women truly appreciate the efforts of the Natural Resources Board and
----more-----
the Department of Natural Resources to support federal and state legislation regulating the discharge of ballast water into the Great Lakes,” stated Lil Pipping, President of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. “However, it appears that upon a review of current state pollution laws, that the Board and the Department can already fully regulate the discharge of ballast water from international ships and the many organizations involved in this petition call on the DNR to do so now.”
The petition is being filed with the Natural Resources Board and the Department Secretary at its meeting in Madison today.
The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation is made up of one hundred and fifty-seven hunting, fishing and trapping organizations in Wisconsin and is the state affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. The Federation is dedicated to conservation education and the advancement of sound conservation policies. For further information, contact George Meyer, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation at 608-516-5545.
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | 'In short, they have the responsability and power to manage our natural resouces. With that, their laps along with the EPA are where the blame falls on things like this. I do not believe they can brush aside the finger pointing, they are the managers. I do trust that if the DNR was an elected office position the reactions to these concerns would be quite different. They are not truely accountable to anyone and they do act like it. Not saying all thing from the DNR are bad but when the actions do nothing to truely deal with the issue, I will call it to the carpet.'
What carpet? Just a question, I don't see any benefit of waving accusations and charges around if no one is paying any attention but us few. I'm trying to tell you DNR folks DO read this board, but will not post here if the place looks like it's full of junk yard dogs, so to speak.
Our DNR Secretary and as a result, top staff members, serve at the pleasure of...who?? Isn't our Governor elected by US?
Please don't compare a LMB kill in Texas to a Muskie kill ion St Clair, the impact is not comparable for too many reasons to go into here. I'm calling our resident Muskie fisheries manager to get a better take on how to verbalize this tomorrow. He managed both bass and muskies in the south as he does here in Wisconsin, so he'd be a great source of information.
I would suggest your comparison of the LMB virus to VHS is a parallel only in the fact both are viruses.
The top statement isn't logical. The Virus spread through the Great Lakes, and may have been borne by other methods than shipping vessels. Sure, the original outbreak might...might have been caused by a salty borne load, but is there any definitive proof of that? And, how many ballast loads are discharged without anyone's knowledge? Sure, one can try to control the issues, but passing a law and getting total cooperation are not the same things, as some here have pointed out.
I think I gave you two clear RECENT issues where the DNR DID attempt to protect the resources, and the Legislature, due to private special interest group pressures, reversed those regulations. Who has the power now? New tournament regulations are about to be jammed down our collective throats because of an unfunded mandate from the lawmakers to our DNR which was a thinly veiled anti tournament water use complaint from ANOTHER special interest group.
I'm sick of finger pointing and the negative results of all that wasted energy.
Did you look at the PDF?
If I was a DNR fisheries manager, and was asked to post my opinion on this board, I'd say, "No thanks, I don't think I can have a reasonable conversation there." That's not a good thing, sir, and as long as folks point fingers at people they do not know and make oblique accusations as if those folks were cardboard cutouts, that's what we will have. What possible results can we have other than a few guys making noise if we cannot involve the regulatory agencies and those who work for them? We have been successful at opening channels of communication with fisheries folks on other FIRST properties, and it is my intent to keep those options available here.
I have read all your comments, now please bottom line it for me and tell us what you would do to solve this issue, and what you would then do if the virus is more vile than you think and we lose large populations of gamefish in our inland lakes and rivers when and if it's spread.
| |
| | |
| Jayman,
Never said I was offended, never said Sunshine was offended and I'm definitely not a sheep in the flock, but you sir continue to be as I stated.
Edited by Joel "Doc" Kunz 1/9/2008 3:49 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| As I stated earlier, when a minnow is purchased in Menasha that shows all the signs of VHS, is given to the DNR frozen but fresh and there is no intention to test the minnow to see if it does have VHS nor quarentine the tank in the shop it came from until it is determined if it does have VHS and allowing those other possible contaminated minnows to be set in the waters. This shows me the very, very big holes in the plan to stop this supossed crisis. Much less there is plan that I know of to halt fish transplants from Winnebago, mainly sturgeon.
Acting in only certian areas and not acting in other areas that have the same potential of spreading VHS is not serving the public. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | As I said above...
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| "Much less there is plan that I know of to halt fish transplants from Winnebago, mainly sturgeon. "
The plot thickens in the WI DNR Conspiracy. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Not being able to compare the VHS and LMBV to each other is a little tunneled vision. You cannot sit here and say there is a major issue without taking into account what has happened with this type of issue in the rest of the counry and world. The viruses are similar. Name me one virus anywhere in the world that desimated any fish or animal. VHS in Europe was hitting the trout farms hard but not he wild population that hard. There are over 100 fish viruses in this country and none have had a long term bad impact anywhere.
Bio's all over keep stating this will most likly take the coarse of any other virus. The fish will build an immunity. If they didn't there would have been a fish kill in Lake St. Claire last year and there wasn't. Did any fish virus have a longterm negative impact anywhere...no. Is CWD having a longterm negative impact...no. Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no. A virus is a virus and over-reacting to it does just as much harm as not reacting.
How could you say the DNR could not have a resonable conversation here on this? Because all veiwpoints are not as yours? A lot points that I have made you just brushed aside stating there is not enough time or space to respond. Isn't part of this website to educate? If you think I am dead wrong then by all means explain, I am always open to listening. But saying there is not enough time or space to respond kind of works agianst you if your veiwpoint is right.
"Sure, the original outbreak might...might have been caused by a salty borne load, but is there any definitive proof of that?"
I ask where is the definitive proof VHS will desimate fish populations as this big concern suggests? You can't look to Europes wild population and that has the closest simularity to this. All the proof from other areas suggest differently.
What would I do? Let nature take it's coarse. It is unreasonable to think that nature can't take care of it's self with this virus and only the DNR has a plausable solution. No fish virus has ever desimated a wild population, we still have all the game fish in this country as we have had, in fact probable more of a population. For every reaction there is an equal reaction and when man trys to be the mastermind in nature the reaction is usually not good.
"Our DNR Secretary and as a result, top staff members, serve at the pleasure of...who?? Isn't our Governer elected by US?"
Please tell me one DNR official that we have elected. The DNR is it's own body, un-elected. Why do you think they can enter property with no warrents and do not have to acount it through the courts like the police or FBI?
I could be wrong just as easily as you could be wrong but I am not going to try to smite you because you have a different view. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| I meant to type much less there is no plan that I know of to halt fish transplants from Winnebago, mainly sturgeon. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | 'How could you say the DNR could not have a resonable conversation here on this?'
Because the average working scientist doesn't take well to being constantly insulted by anonymous laymen.
'I ask where is the definitive proof VHS will desimate fish populations as this big concern suggests? You can't look to Europes wild population and that has the closest simularity to this. All the proof from other areas suggest differently.'
Water temps last Spring rose very rapidly, and may be the reason no outbreak was noticed in large numbers on St Clair. 4000 muskies the year before was enough to get my attention.
'Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no.'
I'd suggest you look into that a bit better. That virus kills a few PEOPLE every year(transmitted by mosquito bites), so it's a bit different deal.
'Let nature take it's coarse. It is unreasonable to think that nature can't take care of it's self with this virus and only the DNR has a plausable solution.'
I don't think anyone form the DNR has offered a solution, just preventative measures until more data can be accumulated and more study can be done. That's the very nature of science, I think, and one can rail about it all one wants.
'Please tell me one DNR official that we have elected. The DNR is it's own body, un-elected. Why do you think they can enter property with no warrents and do not have to acount it through the courts like the police or FBI?'
What? I asked you who appoints the DNR Secretary, and is responsible for that leadership, which by the way I feel has been excellent. It's now obvious at least to me you just are posting here to bash the DNR, show me otherwise. Please stick to the facts the debate.
'Is CWD having a longterm negative impact...no. Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no. A virus is a virus and over-reacting to it does just as much harm as not reacting.'
CWD is a prion, not a virus. CWD has killed a crapload of deer in the hot zone. That is a separate issue, but the State has done all they can to contain the CWD outbreak here. I didn't like how the PR was handled with the CWD outbreak at first, but that was a different regime and a different time. I'm darned glad there have been no affirmed cases here in the north. What harm is being done other than personal inconvenience and a change in the bait business, which I sympathize with, by the current regs?
'I ask where is the definitive proof VHS will desimate fish populations as this big concern suggests? You can't look to Europes wild population and that has the closest simularity to this. All the proof from other areas suggest differently.'
4000 dead, floating adult muskies in a relatively small area of one water body was enough for me. I'd rather see error on the side of caution, but again, that's just me.
'A lot points that I have made you just brushed aside stating there is not enough time or space to respond. Isn't part of this website to educate? If you think I am dead wrong then by all means explain, I am always open to listening. But saying there is not enough time or space to respond kind of works agianst you if your veiwpoint is right.'
I was speaking to the impact of a die off of muskies like that on St Clair and the threat it could occur again and again, however less effect in each outbreak there might be, and the effect, both short term and long term, on the population of Muskies there. I referred to the MuskieFIRST Research Board for more information, I suggest you look into that. I also said that trying to explain why the impact of the loss of that many large muskies would be completely different than the loss of 2% of a LMB population in a Texas reservoir would take too much time and space, and most would find it irrelevant to this conversation. I also said I will be calling a highly respected fisheries manager to get a better perspective as speak to the subject more clearly, since he has managed both fishes in the South, and up here. What more would you like me to say?
I'm not trying to 'smite' you, heck I don't even know you, I don't think. I'm debating what you have argued are the facts, and asking you to prove out your concepts and facts accordingly. I'm offering my view, and you offer yours. As long as we both do so without attacking each other or anyone else, that's the very nature of healthy debate.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| "Because the average working scientist doesn't take well to being constantly insulted by anonymous laymen."
All I'm going to say to this is I am in no way a anonymous layman. I have earlier come right out and stated who I was. My work is seen by over 450,000 magazine subscribers every month and the editors would not publish my stuff if it was not accurate. I also have several magazines across the country that request editorial cartoons through-out the year. I know more manufactures, minnow farm owners and bait shop owners than you could shake a stick at.
Second, there is no scientist that can say with any certianty what this virus will do, when there is no certianty either way and the scientist would be insulted by opposing views, then they should remove themselves from the field.
"Water temps last Spring rose very rapidly, and may be the reason no outbreak was noticed in large numbers on St Clair. 4000 muskies the year before was enough to get my attention."
There was no kill from VHS. The first musky kill ever reported was only 4 to 12 muskies. If there was any kill they would have recorded it nomatter how small the number.
''Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no.'
I'd suggest you look into that a bit better. That virus kills a few PEOPLE every year(transmitted by mosquito bites), so it's a bit different deal."
I did say birds, anyway people are animals too and yet...no mass killing.
"CWD is a prion, not a virus. CWD has killed a crapload of deer in the hot zone."
And yet the deer population is increasing in the hot zone.
"It's now obvious at least to me you just are posting here to bash the DNR, show me otherwise."
I worked for the DNR in deer management and am good aquaintences with may wardens in many states. Many of who agree with me. Just because I want to have an accounting and think the DNR has been stepping on toes for a long time is not bashing. By the same token I could say you are for anything the DNR does and they have you are an agent of the DNR here to bolster the agency. Don't second guess my motives please.
I am curious though, you stated earlier that the special interests are forcing legislature to make laws that get crammed down your neck. Don't you see the inherite problem of over stating the VHS issue? How easy will it be for these same groups to go back to Madison and push through even worse laws because of the people out there screaming the sky is falling. This VHS has not been protrated as a issue we must monitor...it has been sold as a huge huge enviromental issue with millions of fish at risk of almost extinction. Can't you see the issue with that?
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | You posted what you do, that's a fact, but not who you are. You also assume I am speaking only of you, I was not.
There were anecdotal reports of a few dead muskies this Spring on the Larry and St. I'll see if I can relocate that information.
You and a few others have been rather hard on the DNR's overall response to VHS with nothing more to offer to support the concept than an 'I think' accusation sometimes presented in a manner that is a bit unseemly. Then, when evidence is indicated that the agency might in fact have reacted reasonably, and with a measure of caution, the response is, "No, WAIT!! Look over THERE!!"
If one is going to accuse an agency or person of incompetence/whatever, one needs to back it up with more than exaggerated rhetoric. Opposing views reasonably expressed with good logic behind them are one thing, accusations and blanket statements that the DNR has failed us completely are another. Give me a break. You virtually accused the DNR of Gestapo actions a few lines ago. I know quite a few DNR scientists too, and I am very familiar with the response I can expect from them to this sort of rhetoric. I described that in my last post.
If the herd is growing despite CWD in southern WI, I submit that the changes we have made to our climate and environment favors a growing and difficult to manage, herd, wouldn't you agree?
You demand an accounting; cool, have you picked up the phone and called Mr. Staggs? Who's second guessing your motives? Certainly not me, I'm making observations based on what I read in your posts.
No, I am not an 'agent' of the DNR, but I can and will request that no matter which person or agency anyone here refers to, it will be done with due respect and civility.
I never said anything of the sort. Special interest groups are INFLUENCING our lawmakers and said lawmakers are rewriting DNR regulations in the process; all in an effort for special interests to get what they want. It's pure democracy (little d) in action, but wow, what a mess that it could happen at all. No, I don't see any special interest groups addressing the VHS issues. This seems to me to be an attempt to add that possibility as part of this 'conspiracy theory' issue that has cropped up. Sorry, I don't buy it.
I don't think VHS is 'being sold' as anything but what it is; a virus that if spread throughout the State waters would have a seriously detrimental effect on much more than just the fish populations. I read a statement ( I think in the DNR VHS handout) that, as I said earlier, clearly indicated they feel these measures are perhaps not the best or worst response, but interim as more data can be collected, study can be done, and outbreaks....or lack thereof...can be assessed.
I'll ask you again, did you look at the PDF from the Green Bay Muskie Coalition presentation?
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Yes I did read the PDF. As with anything new there are more questions than answers. I always have and always will side with caution on anything being enacted to try to solve a mother nature problem.
The DNR does a lot of good and have a lot of good regulations but when it comes to invasives they always look like they are in a cluster and just shooting arrows into the dark hoping they get a hit. I'm not bashing but I do want to lay out the history I am looking at.
Gypsy moths: Entered Wis. decades ago and was supposed to devistate our forests...never happened and they are more prevalent now than then.
Ash beetle: Going to destroy all ash trees in the state and the solution is if it is found in a tree, cut all ash trees for a 5 mile radius from that area. Has never worked, besides, you could leave all trees stand and the beetle will not destroy all.
Alwives: No need to re-hash that
Zebra mussels: It was very obvious where they were comming from but yet no action.
Eels: I will give the DNR credit on this one for controling the population.
CWD: It is showing that the eradication in the hot zone is not working. CWD migrates a lot slower, I do believe it will make it's way north within 5 years but agian, I don't see a huge issue with that either.
I also look at MI for examples on how these same issues are not taken as seriously as they say it should. MI does not put the money into enforcing the no ballast dumping law but they will go to the parking lots of "no sent or live baits allowed" lakes and hand out $250 tickets to anglers who are not fishing with sent but happen to have some in their vehicle on the property. MI politics are messed up anyhow.
I am just looking at this at a totally different angle. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Your last statement in your last post I agree with entirely.
Brad B,
I am more than familiar with your narrow and unfortunately inaccurate assessment of the Coalition's attempt to gain a temporary moratorium on Muskie harvest from Green Bay until population studies and upper confidence studies can be undertaken. The Coalition has even offered to fund the Graduate Student to help complete a study.
First, there's a big difference between 'disgust' and concern.
Second, many of these folks to a large degree have been involved from an organizational standpoint from the beginning. There's way more to this than what folks who are tacitly opposed might know or understand until a more careful study of the subject might be encouraged.
Third, you misunderstand the goals of the coalition. The Conservation Congress vote on raising the limit on GB to 54" passed resoundingly, but was voted down basically in committee. This has been voted on by the public in our state's own democratic process, and was passed.
Fourth, VHS is accurately voiced as a concern, but is not the motivation ( or as you insinuate, 'excuse' ) for the proposed harvest moratorium and I believe the Coalition was clear on that issue. Read the proposal, and listen to the audio from the presentation.
Fifth, recent Canadian regulations designed to protect fragile trophy Muskie fisheries are viewed by most in Muskie management as visionary. One can view placing a 54" limit there as a 'social issue', as one can view slot limits, reduced bag limits in walleye or bass management, you call it a social issue, we call it a conservation issue. There is a growing combination of pressures on that special and highly concentrated population. In this case, our state has a very special trophy Muskie fishery just coming of age with potential to be more than world class, and a fair portion of the success of that program was financed by Muskie anglers. If that's not worth protecting to you, that's fine; it is to me and I'll do my best to educate those who do not understand the proposal or ideas behind working with our DNR to accomplish the stated goals.
Sixth, of course the top muskies there only represent a small percentage of the population. You make the point for me, if an ever growing number of fish are harvested at 50" and there are only a few available, there it is.
Have you read the large volume of information in the Research Forum at MuskieFIRST on this issue? Please do, and please allow that is much more to this effort than what you are saying. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Steve -
I had a long response written directed at your critique of my post regarding the GBMC presentation. After re-reading what I had posted, I decided to delete it. It is apparent to me that we will not agree on this, much as I can not agree with the author of the GBMC's presentation.
Good luck with your efforts. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Well, I must admit my short time here has been more than interesting. I came to this site to express my concerns and ask questions of the concerns I have been asked to address this year in the magazines. While many here are well informed and attentive to the VHS problem, the way some present their side is the underlying issue.
Just the fact that when I first posted I got jumped on like I was an uneducated yuts. I did notice that before my first post someone posted the statement "Wisconsin DNR what a joke..." and no one batted an eye. I got pounced. Everything I have stated is fact and I even (though ignored) backed some of it up with websites including the Michigan DNR, but no matter what was posted it was heavily ignored by some. I research extensivly, I have to. What was most disapointing was anyone who disagreed with the DNR was labeled a "armchair biologist, junk yard dog and anonymous layman".
It amazes me that there is a concern that DNR officials won't post for the fear of being bashed and all along there is a bashing of the ordinary citizen making them appear stupid. Much less bashing someone trying to have a discusion when you fully don't realize who that person may be. It is no wonder the DNR stirs such negative reactions out of people when they are looked upon as stupid or not important. The DNR may not say that but the staunch supporters of the DNR apparently do. Some may have good information but the debating skills need a lot to be desired.
If your main concern is to make this forum comfortable for the DNR personel to post and not the average fisherman then your mission of informing and educating people has failed. Whether your a fishing guide, shop owner or just a fisherman if you come across as an elitest, your point (no matter how good and educated it may be) will be shoved aside. The greatest percentage of fisherman are not pros and guides they are the average joe trying to catch a few fish. You may have all the knowlage in the world on VHS and be 100% correct but because of the way you present yourself people will not heed. Then VHS starts to become less of a problem and the messanger becomes the bigger problem.
One must realize that there are more veiws to this than just from a fisherman, guide or DNR. There is a complete industry out there that supports your hobby or career and it is very apparent that some cannot or do not want to see that veiwpoint. My veiw comes from that of all the ma and pa bait shops that I deal with through out the Midwest who depend on the industry for income. The concern of them having to close up shops massively out-weighs a one year 3% population kill of musky.
I am starting a series in my cartoon that is going to deal with VHS and the different state's DNR and the way they are viewed and I want to thank all that have debated with me. The opinions and information was vast.
Good luck with what you are trying to accomplish here.
Steve Krueger
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Steve,
Actually, the effort here is to make this forum a comfortable place for everyone to post. If there are statements like this from a published writer, I think they SHOULD be questioned:
'I will revise my blame comment to include the State Legislature, as they say, if you want to find the reason for anything follow the money. This is all about money for the state. I still say the VHS scare is way over blown though.'
OK, no mistake what that accusation means.
'This is serious, but I'm afraid the DNR is the problem for not being on the ball trying to stop VHS in the first place. After all, they have known about it for 65 years.'
Which is it, is this serious, or something we should just 'let take it's course? I had to ask, and don't see the harm in doing so.
I asked folks to look at the PDF because the timeline of the advance of the disease hoping to point out what you were trying to say here. Again, obvious.You complain about the DNR trying to slow or stop the spread of the disease, then complain they didn't do anything before the spread of the disease was noted in the Great Lakes.
'This is just one example where they know there is a problem but yet do not inact anything to prevent exotics from entering. Salmon are not native fish to Michigan. They were planted there after the fish population was devistated due to mis-management and eels.'
OK, you link an article and cherry pick a couple critical comments from that piece describing the complicated and now set in stone introduction of Salmon into Lake Michigan. Then you accuse the DNR of mismanagement because an invasive entered the lake...how long ago? Keep in mind the timeline there. Attempt here is to try to indicate a pattern...and it's pretty obvious.
'The DNR has been slow to non-responsive to any threat that comes to this state until it hits and it is too late. When they do respond it is in gross overdose of what is needed.'
'I will revise my blame comment to include the State Legislature, as they say, if you want to find the reason for anything follow the money. This is all about money for the state. I still say the VHS scare is way over blown though.'
'Let's face it, the DNR is known for botching things up like eco-systems.'
'The lake needs fish to be planted every year to keep the population. A lake of that size is unable to naturaly support itself due to what? Nature? No, the miss management of the lake. The last I looked the DNR has a huge chunk of that responsability.'
And so on. I was debating you fairly point to point and indicated that comments like yours and OTHERS here would not likely draw in folks who actually are working scientists and might know something definitive about this issue, and that anonymous attacks from laymen ( there were a few and you ARE a layman, as am I) were counterproductive, and that many of the accusations were not supported well by the facts. There is and was a considerable amount of armchair biology going on in this thread, admit that, it's right in front of us. That's fine until the insinuation is that we know better than the scientists, and they are all bumbling about shooting arrows in the dark. That goes too personal, and is an obvious attempt to do just that. I then pointed out that if one is abused here or anywhere else in an unfair manner, they are not likely to join the conversation. That leaves this pretty badly one sided, and allows for the topic to degenerate into a bash fest or train wreck, something I'd like to avoid when discussing a subject as important to all of us as this one.
I simply challenged your points of contention, I didn't 'jump' anyone. Look at your reaction to simple debate when your concepts and accusations are questioned...you holler like hell and bail out. How would you expect one of the DNR folks to react, or for that matter anyone who looks into what has REALLY been said and done and sees what's happening here? I know, I had several read this today and give me their reaction.
Our 'mission' on the message boards here is not just to educate, but that's an obviously attractive by product of providing accurate news of the day and encouraging reasonable and fair discussion. The 'average fisherman' posts here all the time. Sometimes we agree with each other, sometimes we don't, that's obvious from the posts here. As a few discovered with no prodding, beating on each other doesn't forward the discussion.
I happen to be more concerned than you about the potential threat of the spread of this virus. Some will dismiss it, and I think that's dangerous until we get a better understanding where this all might go.
You mention your personal bias dismissing the potential impact stems from concerns about the bait and tackle stores and others in that part of the fishing retail sales chain, I feel the same way there, it is alot to have to deal with for the bait shops; large and small. I'm sure bait dealers will have no end of problems with this, but this too shall pass eventually, and if an adjustment is made in how we fish, entrepreneurs like our local Rhinelander bait dealers will adjust. I hope also this will eventually blow over, but I'm not betting the ENTIRE future of our sport on a section of the economic structure of the present. VHS is here, and we all will have to deal with it and the results as they play out. The difference is....some were looking for someone to blame and kick around without carefully thinking it through, and some wanted to actually discuss the ramifications of the disease. I brought this up to discuss the issues of the disease, regulations placed as a result, and future of our sport as a result. I think we have hashed that over pretty well.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Steve,
I'm not totally bailing out, I just need to get back on the road agian. I don't think I was hollering like hell but I am biased on that, I may very well have. My points were not cherry picking, they were derived from my own veiws and the veiws of many others. There are many concerns on the way things have been handled in the past. The only way to express them are to mention them such as CWD, it was not to compare them as the same type of problem but simply to show a point that things have not been approched in what many see as a proper manner. And to show the outcomes are usually not what was expected nor the concern so great in the end.
When I refered before that points were simply dismissed I was talking about things such as the comparing VHS with LMBV. Biologists in TX, TN and MI that I have talked to say the two are very similar in the way they are spread, water temp needed and effect. The main difference is LMBD mainly killed the large adult bass only, no other fish. The point was that the only way to deal with any virus (including in humans) is to allow the targeted hosts to build up an immunity. And by all estimates the fish population will do the same.
Humans are not the only way that VHS can be spread around, there is the natural element. It is well known that ponds and other bodies of water that had no fish all of a sudden start having a fish population. No man interfering, just birds with fish eggs clinging to them from another body of water or carrying a fish and drop it in a fish free pond and suddenly introduce fish. This even happend in by backyard for crying out loud, a few years back my yard had a huge body of standing water that it never had before. I live near Winnebago and have many ducks around and they were swimming in the standing water. In a few days the water started drying up and low and behold there was a tiny minnow swimming in the water.
VHS will spread and just blamming and targeting humans for it's continued spread is very short sighted. Unless there is a plan out there to train waterfowl to take a sanatation shower before they leave bodies of water I see no way that the DNR can remotly control it's spread. And agian, there is no evidence what so ever that any virus has ever had a long term negative effect on any wild fish population.
The one thing that really got my attention on the DNR is agian... I purchased minnows at the local gas station. One had all signs of VHS. I called the DNR and they came by that night and picked it up and agreed it looked very much so like VHS. By the time they got there the minnow died so I froze it to preserve it. This took place on Dec 18, 2007 if I am remembering correctly. Last week I was told that the minnow was not going to be tested and he didn't know why. So in short, there was a very possible case where a bait minnow from a supply tank had VHS and nothing at all was done. How is that taking it seriously? They didn't even quarentine the tank it came from, all the minnows were sold and who knows what system they went into.
You could resonably say that the DNR has helped in the spread of VHS.
I happened to take plenty of pictures of the minnow for the record. It clearly shows the bleeding and eyes. Am I supposed to just sit on this if the DNR does nothing? Just because it may make the DNR look bad does that mean I shouldn't bring this to the attention of other influences in the industry. This is i huge blunder whether it be a person or policy. You cannot say you are very concerned about VHS if this incident does not raise a major concern with you.
Show me the DNR addressing the natural planting of VHS by birds and being concerned about a very possible VHS case in minnows and then I will take this more seriously than what at this moment I can.
Steve Krueger | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Earlier you said this:
'I just talked to the DNR bio. and I was told that the minnow can't be tested unless it's alive and no action was taken to make sure any of the minnows in the tank it came from didn't have VHS.'
Then:
'Last week I was told that the minnow was not going to be tested and he didn't know why.'
I don't know why the bait dealer wasn't shut down. I wouldn't attempt to speculate because I don't know all the details. Drop me a PM and I'll make some calls to see what I can find out. What type of minnow was this? Is that specie on the list?
One cannot reasonably say anything more than that about your minnow incident, in my opinion, until more information is provided.
On the road myself today!
Mammals and birds don't carry the disease, so it would have to be transmitted by carrying an infected fish from one water body to another, From what I have read, that sort of incidental contact is unlikely to spread the disease, I'll try to give a reference later. I sincerly hope you are right, and the 'long term' effect is minimal; but I sure won't welcome the virus introduction into any lake or river.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Steve, don't take this personal but who is supposed to pay for the test you asked for? Is the DNR now absorbing the costs that are supposed to be handled by the bait suppliers and dealers, does the DNR have the authority to quarintine the bait dealers inventory?
What did you expect to happen? Was the dealer registered? You see it's not the DNR's fault they have no authority but yet YOU blame them? Should that store have disposed of that lot of minnows? maybe that would be the better solution if they were as concerned about the spread as much as some people they should have killed them all. Hell I have too
Most of us here know one another and many of us disagree with one another. I bring topics like this to the table all the time and get bashed quite often for my views yet continue for some unknown reason, Fishing is a passion for me and many folks here have taught me a lot over the years, If my skewed view of the topic helps only one person look at something from multiple angles I'm happy.
There are too many one-sided people in this world that only look out for themselves. I appreciate your view and the points you have made and hope you continue to participate, there are a lot of lurkers that come here for advice or a chuckle so please hang around and enjoy and try not to take things personal!
Good Luck
Tyee
Edited by tyee 1/10/2008 9:51 AM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| The DNR Bio. siad that he did not know why the minnow was not going to be tested. He was given the reason that it had to alive, then gave a reason later that it was because it was frozen. He was confused with the answers he was getting from the the people who are actually responsable for the testing. He is one of the people within the DNR who sees a huge hole in the regulations. He was the person who was told to pick up the minnow, he doesn't deal directly with the VHS testing but he can't understand why it won't be tested.
The minnow was a golden shiner.
My understanding is fish eggs can carry VHS, that is why they started egg disinfecting but the disinfecting does not work on all spicies of eggs like musky. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Tyee
The DNR doesn't have the authority to quarentine the minnow stocks at the farms but the do have the authority to quarentine the tank at the dealer. I admit that funding for testing is an issue but you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you can't go around and fine people for carring live minnows away from a lake that show no sign of infection and probably arn't just because you might infect a different body of water then turn around and not test a bait minnow that shows all the signs which has a higher probability that some of the minnows from the same tank also have it, and allowing those minnows to be bought and used.
Yes, the store having to destroy that batch of minnows would be very much in line with the regulations, that would have been a very good responce.
I try not to take thing personal, I just get cranky once in a while. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | I guess we need to talk to someone who is on stream with VHS testing. I'm told quite a bit of the disease testing in fish is done right here in Wisconsin, maybe I can dig a little and get some answers.
Tyee, almost everyone here is 'one sided' when offering opinions and ideas, it's the nature of the beast. I get bashed alot too...
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| 3% muskie kill in an "abnormal" population of muskies. I don't beleive catching double digits of muskies in a day is normal.
oh...forgot to add purely opinion.
Edited by Jayman 1/10/2008 1:20 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Virus life cycle
The life cycle of viruses differs greatly between species (see below) but there are six basic stages in the life cycle of viruses:
A virus attaches to the host cell and enters endocytosis. The capsid protein dissociates and the viral RNA is transported to the nucleus. In the nucleus, the viral polymerase complexes transcribe and replicate the RNA. Viral mRNAs migrate to cytoplasm where they are translated into protein. Then the newly synthesized virions bud from infected cell.Attachment is a specific binding between viral capsid proteins and specific receptors on the host cellular surface. This specificity determines the host range of a virus. For example, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infects only human T cells, because its surface protein, gp120, can interact with CD4 and receptors on the T cell's surface. This mechanism has evolved to favour those viruses that only infect cells that they are capable of replicating in. Attachment to the receptor can induce the viral-envelope protein to undergo changes that results in the fusion of viral and cellular membranes.
Penetration: following attachment, viruses enter the host cell through receptor mediated endocytosis or membrane fusion.
Uncoating is a process that viral capsid is removed is degraded by viral enzymes or host enzymes thus releasing the viral genomic nucleic acid.
Replication involves synthesis of viral messenger RNA (mRNA) for viruses except positive sense RNA viruses (see above), viral protein synthesis and assembly of viral proteins and viral genome replication.
Following the assembly of the virus particles post-translational modification of the viral proteins often occurs. In viruses such as HIV, this modification, (sometimes called maturation), occurs after the virus has been released from the host cell.[51]
Viruses are released from the host cell by lysis (see below) . Enveloped viruses (e.g., HIV) typically are released from the host cell by “budding”. During this process, the virus acquires its phospholipid envelope which contains embedded viral glycoproteins.
DNA viruses
Animal DNA viruses, such as herpesviruses, enter the host via endocytosis, the process by which cells take in material from the external environment. Frequently after a chance collision with an appropriate surface receptor on a cell, the virus penetrates the cell, the viral genome is released from the capsid and host polymerases begin transcribing viral mRNA. New virions are assembled and released either by cell lysis or by budding off the cell membrane.
RNA viruses
Animal RNA viruses can be placed into about four different groups depending on their modes of replication. The polarity of the RNA largely determines the replicative mechanism, as well as whether the genetic material is single-stranded or double-stranded. Some RNA viruses are actually DNA based but use an RNA-intermediate to replicate. RNA viruses are dependent on virally encoded RNA replicase to create copies of their genomes.
Reverse transcribing viruses
Reverse transcribing viruses replicate using reverse transcription, which is the formation of DNA from an RNA template. Viruses containing RNA genomes use a DNA intermediate to replicate, whereas those containing DNA genomes use an RNA intermediate during genome replication. Both types use the reverse transcriptase enzyme to carry out the nucleic acid conversion. both types are susceptible to antiviral drugs that inhibit the reverse transcriptase enzyme, e.g. zidovudine and lamivudine.
An example of the first type is HIV which is a retrovirus. Retroviruses often integrate the DNA produced by reverse transcription into the host genome. This is why HIV infection can at present, only be treated and not cured.
Examples of the second type are the Hepadnaviridae which includes Hepatitis B virus and the Caulimoviridae - e.g. Cauliflower mosaic virus.
Bacteriophages
Main article: Bacteriophage
Transmission electron micrograph of multiple bacteriophages attached to a bacterial cell wallBacteriophages infect specific bacteria by binding to surface receptor molecules and then enter the cell. Within a short amount of time, in some cases, just minutes, bacterial polymerase starts translating viral mRNA into protein. These proteins go on to become either new virions within the cell, helper proteins which help assembly of new virions, or proteins involved in cell lysis. Viral enzymes aid in the breakdown of the cell membrane, and in the case of the T4 phage, in just over twenty minutes after injection over three hundred phages could be released.
Oh and this is purely fact. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_viruses
This ought to get everybody fired up! | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Prevention and treatment
Because viruses use the machinery of a host cell to reproduce and reside within them, they are difficult to eliminate without killing the host cell. The most effective medical approaches to viral diseases so far are vaccinations to provide resistance to infection, and antiviral drugs which treat the symptoms of viral infections.
Host immune response
The body's first line of defense against viruses is the innate immune system. This comprises cells and other mechanisms that defend the host from infection in a non-specific manner. This means that the cells of the innate system recognize, and respond to, pathogens in a generic way, but unlike the adaptive immune system, it does not confer long-lasting or protective immunity to the host.[82]
RNA interference is an important innate defense against viruses.[83] Many viruses have a replication strategy that involves double-stranded RNA [dsRNA]. When such a virus infects a cell, it releases its RNA molecule or molecules, which immediately bind to a protein complex called Dicer that cuts the RNA into smaller pieces. A biochemical pathway called the RISC complex is activated which degrades the viral mRNA and the cell survives the infection. Rotaviruses avoid this mechanism by not uncoating fully inside the cell and by releasing newly produced mRNA through pores in the particles inner capsid. The genomic dsRNA remains protected inside the core of the virion.[84][85]
When the adaptive immune system of a vertebrate encounters a virus, it produces specific antibodies which bind to the virus and render it non-infectious. This is called humoral immunity. Two types of antibodies are important. The first called IgM is highly effective at neutralizing viruses but is only produced by the cells of the immune system for a few weeks. The second, called, IgG is produced indefinitely. The presence of IgM in the blood of the host is used to test for acute infection, whereas IgG indicates an infection sometime in the past.[86] Both types of antibodies are measured when tests for immunity are carried out.[87]
A second defense of vertebrates against viruses is called cell-mediated immunity and involves immune cells known as T cells. The body's cells constantly display short fragments of their proteins on the cell's surface, and if a T cell recognizes a suspicious viral fragment there, the host cell is destroyed by T killer cells and the virus-specific T-cells proliferate. Cells such as the macrophage are specialists at this antigen presentation.[88][89]
Not all virus infections produce a protective immune response in this way. HIV evades the immune system by constantly changing the amino acid sequence of the proteins on the surface of the virion. These persistent viruses evade immune control by sequestration, blockade of antigen presentation, cytokine resistance, evasion of natural killer cell activities, escape from apoptosis, and antigenic shift.[90]
The production of interferon is an important host defense mechanism.[91]
Vaccines
For more details on this topic, see Vaccination.
Vaccination is a cheap and effective way of preventing infections by viruses. Vaccines were used to prevent viral infections long before the discovery of the actual viruses. Their use has resulted in a dramatic decline in morbidity (illness) and mortality (death) associated with viral infections such as polio, measles, mumps and rubella.[92] Smallpox infections have been eradicated.[93] Currently vaccines are available to prevent over thirteen viral infections of humans[94] and more are used to prevent viral infections of animals.[95] Vaccines can consist of live or killed viruses.[96] Live vaccines contain weakened forms of the virus that causes the disease. Such viruses are called attenuated. Live vaccines can be dangerous when given to people with a weak immunity, (who are described as immunocompromised), because in these people the weakened virus can cause the original disease.[97] Biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques are used to produce subunit vaccines. These vaccines use only the capsid proteins of the virus. Hepatitis B vaccine is an example of this type of vaccine.[98] Subunit vaccines are safe for immunocompromised patients because they cannot cause the disease.[99]
Antiviral drugs
For more details on this topic, see Antiviral drug.
The true DNA base thymidine
The antiviral drug Zidovudine - AZTOver the past twenty years the development of antiviral drugs has increased rapidly. This has been driven by the AIDS epidemic. Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, (fake DNA building blocks), which viruses incorporate into their genomes during replication. The life-cycle of the virus is then halted because the newly synthesised DNA is inactive. This is because these analogues lack the hydroxyl groups which along with phosphorus atoms, link together to form the strong "backbone" of the DNA molecule. This is called DNA chain termination.[100] Examples of nucleoside analogues are aciclovir for Herpes virus infections and lamivudine for HIV and Hepatitis B virus infections. Aciclovir, is one of the oldest and most frequently prescribed antiviral drugs.[101]
Guanosine
The guanosine analogue AciclovirOther antiviral drugs in use target different stages of the viral life cycle. HIV is dependent on a proteolytic enzyme called the HIV-1 protease for it to become fully infectious. There is a class of drugs called protease inhibitors which have been designed to inactivate the enzyme.
Hepatitis C is caused by an RNA virus. In 80% of people infected the disease is chronic and without treatment they are infected and infectious for the remainder of their lives. However, there is now an effective treatment using the nucleoside analogue drug ribavirin combined with interferon[102] The treatment of chronic carriers of the Hepatitis B virus by using a similar strategy using lamivudine is being developed.[103]
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| These are the statements from the MDNR about the musky population in St. Clare and the lastest is after the musky kill off by MDNR's Newan and I quote:
"He noted that even though up to several thousand muskies may have been lost this spring, those are only a small fraction of the population in the St. Clair system.
"It's still going to be terrific [muskie] fishing. The system arguably is home to the highest densities of muskies anywhere.''
This is from a MDNR report just before the musky kill:
"For example, walleye, muskellunge and smallmouth bass, in combination, have sustained an ecological function as important piscivores, despite changes in their habitat, forage patterns, and relative abundance over the last 30 years."
and
"The Lake St. Clair muskellunge population is one of the few remaining self-sustaining populations in the Great Lakes. Muskellunge currently support a significant and growing recreational fishery in Ontario and Michigan waters of Lake St. Clair. In 1989, for the Ontario waters of Lake St. Clair, muskellunge represented 10 % of the total summer fishery effort with 34,000 rod-hours and catch of 2,000 fish (MacLennan and Bryant 1990), which in 2002 increased to 22 %, 43,000 rod-hours and 7,200 fish, respectively (MacLennan 2003). 20 Draft Fish Community Goal and Objectives For the St. Clair System Draft 3-28-03
An increase in the Ontario and Michigan minimum size limit from 76 to 102 cm (30 to 40 inches) in 1987 along with a growing "catch and release" ethic appears to have afforded important protection to the muskellunge stocks in Lake St. Clair (MacLennan 1996) and contributed to more than a doubling in stock size during the 1990's. Changes in the habitat of Lake St. Clair, favorable to muskellunge also occurred after 1987. The density of musk grass (Chara spp.), a primary substrate for spawning muskellunge (Dombeck et al 1984) had dramatically increased over extensive areas of Lake St. Clair based on macrophyte surveys comparing the mid 1980's to 1990's (MacLennan 1997). Overall macrophyte density in the Ontario waters had increased 5 fold, providing both nursery and adult habitat. Muskellunge were not only more abundant in the lake, but more ubiquitous in distribution. While there has been concern that the increase in muskellunge density may exceed availability of abundant preferred food, recent evidence suggests growth rates remain high (OMNR, unpublished data). The management objective to provide trophy muskellunge fishing opportunities (fish greater than 16 kg (35.3 lbs) and 102 cm (40 inches)) from a stable self-sustaining population appear to have been realized through the 1990's."
I am not going to add any of my own comments but why is the MDNR not too troubled about the musky population? They think it is fine.
Steve Krueger
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | PR, Steve, PR. Ask any fisheries biologist working the muskies over there what they think of losing the 4000 muskies, and let me know what they say. I already have, over a year ago; in person.
The last piece was published in it's whole and reused repeatedly (see the reference to the 1990's there, I saw this piece referenced at the last Muskie Symposium a couple years ago) before the arrival of VHS. I don't much care if you think 4000 dead adult muskies is just fine, to me it isn't. Nothing to be done for it there now except wait to see if there are recurring losses to the disease, but I sure hope we don't see that happen on the Bay. Do you?
I know the MIDNR wasn't happy with the losses to VHS, but they have to deal with what happened and move on as best as they can.
There's much more to this, as I have said several times. The disease just being present halted transportation of fish used for stocking our lakes across State and national boundaries in many areas, halting stocking efforts across the Muskie range for many states, and causing others who were lucky enough to have a surplus to not be able to use those as trade material for other gamefish they need. There are ripple effects from this across the board.
Wisconsin was using stock from the infected waters to stock Green Bay. As of right now, it looks like that will end. I hope not.
Here's a document that deals with potential financial losses as a result of spread of this infection produced by the USDA.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseasenotice_fil...
I don't want to see a layer of dead gamefish on the surface of Pelican Lake. I am not arguing the virus will kill ALL the fish, but I know what it costs to get ONE muskie from fry to 50", and would prefer to lose zero to a preventable situation. Here's what a fisheries manager had to say from a Western State when asked on our sister site what he felt would be the impact if the disease shows up;he sort of supports the notion that not much can really be done to halt the spread of the virus completely unless direct action is taken, which I understand is part of your premise that we should be doing nothing at all and conversely definitely IS the reason the DNR here acted as noted:
' Many of the western states have already imposed a ban on the importation of fish from any of the Great Lakes States. That, however, only takes care of the movement via fish. I would be more surprised if it DIDN'T show up somewhere in the west given the extremely mobile nature of our society. Many states, Utah included, have implemented Aquatic Nuisance Species control measures. Right now, these are largely comprised of some half-baked education effort; in other words, not much substantive action is being taken, mostly lip service and 'sky is falling' rhetoric.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure much can be done once it shows up. Many of the western states historically have not been all that worried about fish diseases since much of the resource (trout - based) has been dependent upon stocking; now that there are many wild stock fisheries supported by natural reproduction, the deck has been re-shuffled and 'advanced worrying management' has again become a popular pastime...
S.'
Here's a press release submitted to MuskieFIRST on May 21, 2007:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 17, 2007
CONTACT: Tammy Newcomb 517-373-3960, Gary Whelan 517-373-6948 or Richard Morscheck 517-373-9265
Fish Disease Discovered in Budd Lake, Clare County
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) officials today confirmed the presence of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) in an inland lake in Michigan.
Budd Lake, a 175-acre lake in central Clare County, experienced a very large die-off of fish beginning April 30 that included black crappie, bluegill and muskellunge. DNR biologists responded quickly to the lake to determine the cause of the die-off. Potential natural and human-induced causes for the die-off were evaluated.
Fish collected from Budd Lake were taken to Michigan State University for testing. Because of the nature of the testing process for VHS, several weeks are required to obtain results. The DNR learned this week that the fish from Budd Lake were positive for VHS. Although the exact cause of the fish die-off is yet to be determined, this is the first time that the virus has been found in inland waters in Michigan.
“We are disappointed that the disease has spread to Budd Lake, and clearly we are very concerned about protecting our inland waters from further spread of this virus,” said DNR Fisheries Division Chief Kelley Smith.
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia is known to cause large-scale mortalities in fish populations over short periods of time. Infected fish may exhibit hemorrhaging in the skin including large red patches, small pin-point spots of minor external hemorrhaging or no external signs at all. Sick fish often will appear listless, swim in circles or hang just below the surface.
VHS likely was introduced into the Great Lakes around 2002 via ships that entered the Great Lakes and discharged ballast water that contained the virus. The virus is now known to be distributed in Michigan’s waters of the Great Lakes from northern Lake Huron to Lake Erie.
Widespread mortalities in muskellunge and gizzard shad in Michigan waters of Lake St. Clair were observed in 2006 along with significant mortalities of yellow perch, white bass, freshwater drum and round gobies in lakes Erie and Ontario.
Internationally, VHS is a fish disease of concern and is a required reportable disease to the International Organization of Animal Health. In October 2006, the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service imposed interstate and international restrictions on the movement of fish to prevent the spread of VHS in the U.S.
As a result of this finding in Budd Lake, the DNR is modifying regulations proposed in the Fish Disease Control Order that was presented for information to the Natural Resources Commission May 10.
The Fish Disease Control Order identifies restrictions on the use of baitfish and fish eggs for different disease management areas. These regulations are necessary to protect the aquatic resources of the state, minimize the spread of disease to uninfected waters and protect the DNR’s hatchery system.
“It is unfortunate that we have to take the steps required under the order, but those steps are similar to what other Great Lakes States and the Province of Ontario are enacting in an attempt to slow the spread of VHS in the Great Lakes Basin,” Smith said. “The order, however, will not prevent anglers from fishing as usual anywhere in the state this summer.”
Major changes to the order include an expanded certification process for facilities that maintain baitfish or other live fish that are known to be susceptible to VHS, as well as additional restrictions on the use of baitfish or eggs by anglers when fishing.
DNR Director Rebecca Humphries is expected to take action on the order at the June 7 meeting of the Natural Resources Commission. The order can be reviewed online at www.michigan.gov/dnrfishing.
The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state’s natural resources for current and future generations.
Just an observation, the MIDNR sure seems concerned from the tone of this release.
Steve, I get it, you feel VHS is not that big a deal. I strongly disagree, and I hope most other anglers out there do, or we may have more up close and personal experience with VHS than anyone here would like.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| I am not happy about the musky kill either, but if the kill amount was as devistating to the over all population as it has been pointed out to me why are there DNR releases and statements out there basically saying otherwise? I would figure they all would come to the same conclucion and they don't. That poses a big problem and confuses the public. I may be one of them but I am still basing my opinion on DNR statements and releases. That can't be discounted. It's starting to look like everyone in the DNR are not on the same page with this. This is very apparent when you can show me stuff where the conclucion is the VHS and musky kill are a big deal and I can find stuff that come to a different conclusion. And both sides are from goverment agencies and sometimes the same agency. Very confusing. | |
| | |
| I seem to get the most reliable info from WHO and the DATCP, there are plenty of DNR reports/news articles and personal opinion out there to be concerned about and raise eyebrows.
Dr. Kebus seems to be the most knowledgable.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Thanks, most of the quotes I have posted have come from the official DNR websites and releases. I am having a hard time understanding how one can point to certian DNR reports and dis-miss others. I suppose it depends on your veiw point though because I lean heavier on the ones that back up my points and other do the same naturaly.
Steve K. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Not really, Steve, it's the intent of the release that matters. The one you posted was designed to calm fears the 4000 fish killed would decimate the Muskie fishery. Note no one said that it was just fine to lose that many, just that the population was large enough to absorb a kill off of that size and still provide good fishing.
The one I posted was designed to express the MIDNR's concern about the virus did what it did in an inland MI lake. If you see what the release was intended to address, it's not that hard to properly place it in perspective. I've been following this since 2005, so I've read alot of 'em in the context for which they were intended. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| Please don't remove this question, it is not posed as a derogatory remark! Are you the same Steve Krueger that works for the DNR and saw a Bigfoot like creature steal a deer carcus out of the back of your pickup in Southern Wisconsin a few yeara ago? a quote from an article: "Bio, Steve Krueger is a contract worker for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. He was hunting, killed a deer and put it in the back of his pickup. A creature with the body of a bear with very broad shoulders, and the head of a wolf took the deer from the truck. The creature stood between 6 and 7 feet tall and had 2 inch long fur." Again, not meant to be a derogatory remark, very interested in hearing his story if he is the same guy. Thanks Dominic | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| All I can say to that is I can see how the DNR at times seems to paint themselves in a corner as far as public opinion goes. Most people don't desyfer the intent of a press release or or official comments. In these cases with the material I refered to should not make it appear as they do. It kind of makes it a up hill battle when it doesn't need to be.
Steve K | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | It's up to the researcher to look into the timeline and context. The questions to ask are:
Is the piece from reliable source?
What is the timeline on this piece in relationship to the overall story?
Who wrote the story, what are the author's qualifications to speak to the subject and what was the motivation to content and timing, how was it published?
Who was the article intended for, what audience? Was the piece intended for fisheries scientists or managers, or the public?
And so on. Taking care to make sure one 'processes' written information in context allows for one to better understand and apply what the intent was, and usually clears up any questions one might have, especially if information seems to be in conflict, in my opinion.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| That makes sense. I'm not conceading to anything...yet
Steve K | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Purple Skeeter,
The answer to your question is both yes and no. Yes it was I that got flashed all over the nation back then from what happened. No, I did not say it was bigfoot.
I don't think this is the correct forum to get into details for several reasons.
Steve K | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| Steve, Once again, not meant to be derogatory, just thought I reconized your name. I work quite often in the area that you had your encounter and I remember the amount of press that it generated among my clients and residents of the area. Thanks for taking the time to visit Walleyefirst and to write about VHS, I live 1/2 mile from Lake Winnebago and have witnessed firsthand the large sheephead dieoff this last spring. I know someone else mentioned this, but if the die off had been Walleye or any other game fish, it would have brought a much larger response than it did. Most people could care less about rough fish and for the last 25 years that I have fished Bago, I have seen a die off in rough fish in the spring and summer. Everyone that I know in my area is concerned about the effect of VHS and we are all doing our best on every outing to inform anyone we meet at the landings about the possibility of transfering VHS. We are all waiting for the ice to melt to see what if anything will happen. Thanks once again for writing. Dominic | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| I live right on the Winnebago and one of the boat launches is on my block. When the kill happened I called the DNR and reported it, there were about 150 sheephead right at the landing. You are correct that if the kill would have been walleye there would have been more of a ruckus. On the same note though, if the same amount of walleye would have died as sheephead, in the big scemes of things it would be a small fraction of the walleye population in the lake. I too am waiting for ice to leave to see what happens (it might be this month if this weather keeps up)
Another time frame to watch is right around Valintines day. There is always a warm spell then and the perch bite like made in the open waters by the river. I can sit on shore and pull perch up all day long. Never paid attention to the water temp in the past so the conditions may not even be right for anything to happen.
My opinion may change this spring after I see what happens. There has always been sheephead kill offs in spring but not as big as it was last year. No complaints here if it only affects the sheepheads in mass.
Steve K | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Wow, been away for a few days and you guys have went hog wild on this thread. Good luck in all you do to get the results that everyone here thinks are nesseccary to keep our fisheree healthy. I am a bit amazed, after reading all the posts, how some are very self serving. worring about there own side of the world instead of the whole picture. The old taking one for the team. I will do what the DNR tells me to do, but personnally dont believe this is any more than mother natures way of straighteneing out what man has screwed up.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| "I will do what the DNR tells me to do, but personnally dont believe this is any more than mother natures way of straighteneing out what man has screwed up."
I agree with this 100%. History has demonstrated how mother nature will always win when man tries to control it. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| This has been my view point, don't know if I was trying to convey it in the correct manner though.
Steve K | |
| | |
| 1st thing in reply to the Golden Shiner showing signs of VHS... Golden Shiners have not been shown to be VHS susceptible.
2nd thing. Musky dieoff in the Detroit River... was it VHS? Yes Joel I copy and paste just like you do....
Muskellunge Die-Off in Southeast Michigan Being Monitored
Contact: Gary Towns 734-953-0241
Agency: Natural Resources
April 25, 2006
A significant number of muskellunge, the second largest game fish in Michigan, have been observed dead over the last month in Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair and Detroit rivers, according to Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologists. The die-off is being monitored by the DNR and volunteer groups in the area.
"Any time a significant number of fish die, we are concerned for the resource and monitor the situation closely to determine the factors behind it," said Gary Towns, DNR Lake Erie Management Unit supervisor. "We feel the current situation has likely been caused by a combination of factors which have impacted the muskies in the area."
Towns said the DNR has essentially ruled out pollution as a factor. He said species such as walleyes, emerald shiners and other minnows, which are more sensitive to pollution, do not seem to have been affected. Anglers are currently catching lots of walleye, bass and other species which appear to be very healthy, Towns added.
DNR fisheries officials feel the die-off of muskellunge could have been caused by several factors including a combination of spawning stress, a warmer winter which may have set the stage for a higher incidence of disease, and recent rapid warming of water over the past several weeks. It is unknown if the bacterial disease first detected in Lake St. Clair muskellunge in 2002, known as musky pox (Piscirickettsia sp.), is involved. Fish with visible signs of musky pox have red rashes and sunken eyes.
Towns said the muskies that are being found in Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River appear to have died about a month ago and were likely on the bottom of the lake and river system. As they have been decomposing, they have floated to the surface of the water, he said. Due to the decomposition, DNR pathologists cannot test the fish for musky pox or other diseases. Only live fish or fish that have been dead for less than a few hours can be tested for bacterial or viral diseases, Towns said.
The rapid warming of the water in the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair area could be a major factor, Towns said. Normally in late April, the water temperatures are in the mid-40s. Towns said that presently the water temperatures are in the low to mid-50s, and some anglers have reported water temperatures in isolated bays in the 60 degree range. Rapid water temperature changes can put a lot of stress on fish, he said.
In terms of musky pox, Towns said while many muskies may be infected with it, the disease is usually only fatal to a few fish. Musky pox could cause the death of some fish when the fish are under stress, for example during the spring when water temperatures can warm rapidly.
The DNR has contacted Canadian fisheries officials to monitor their side of Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River as well, and they have reported some dead muskellunge, too. While a musky die-off was observed in the spring of 2003, very few dead muskies were reported in 2004 and 2005.
"We want area anglers to know that we are aware of the problem and we appreciate their reports of dead muskies in the waters of the St. Clair River, the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair," Towns said. "We are actively monitoring the situation to determine the extent of the die-off, however; we feel at this time it is a combination of weather, spawning stress and perhaps some disease factors which have affected the fish."
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | OK before cash's post we heard how VHS was responsible for muskies dieing and other fish die offs. Now we know what the MIDNR thought of it. Thanks for the post cash. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Actually, that release was before the testing confirmed the 4000 plus dead muskies and thousands of other fish were indeed VHS infection related. Look at the date. The outbreak now is confirmed by State and Federal agencies as well, so it's a matter of record and is not debatable. TIMELINE!!!!
At the Tri Esox Show this weekend, I asked well known Muskie Historian and Researcher Larry Ramsell to send over a piece put together from interviews and conversations with Charter Captains, the Michigan DNR, and others describing the impact of that kill.
I completely fail to understand how anyone can honestly say a virus introduced by shipping imported from Europe or some other exotic location into waters it otherwise NEVER would have called home is Nature 'correcting' ANYTHING....Man INTRODUCED THE virus.
'Man' did nothing negative to the Muskie population on St Clair to cause the kill except introduce the virus, and the kill is hardly a plus. If you are encouraging your stellar walleye population on Winnebago, a result of Man's direct interference with Nature, to be 'corrected' by VHS, that would be a surprise to me. I sure can do without VHS 'correcting' any gamefish populations over here.
That said, it's obvious more study needs be done which is underway, and adjustments to the regs could be forthcoming as the results come in.
Redneck tech, I asked everyone at the Show this weekend about you, trying to find where you are published and what magazines asked you to use the VHS story in your work. Where can I see your work handling this issue? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | 2 questions that I am having a hard tiime finding the answers.
They say a dead fish cannot be tested for vhs. How do they know that is what killed them.
Also, I think man built that muskie fishery in lake st.claire.
The walleye have been in bago in varied amounts since 10,000 BC, or some where near there. Man cleaning marshes for better spawning success, well, thats not stocking.
I really am not trying to argue, just find the fact. | |
| | |
| sworall:
I would really be interested in seeing the data on 4000 Muskies killed by VHS. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| ‘Nothing wrong’ with St. Clair after die-off
Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:18 AM CDT
Another deadly fish virus found in lake
By Bill Parker Editor
Fair Haven, Mich. — “There’s nothing wrong with the muskies,” said muskie guide Bob Brunner from the shore of Lake St. Clair on a recent wind-swept, sunny afternoon. He’d just returned from a fishing trip on the lake with clients Mark and Elaine Diehl and their nephew Adam Piot. Although they didn’t catch a muskie this day, they did encounter a couple strikes and watched two big muskies come up to the surface and roll in the mayfly carcasses littering the lake.
A spring muskie die-off on Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River has many anglers concerned about the world-class fishery in the 420-square-mile lake. But according to recent reports there has been no noticeable impact on the fishery.
A few days after his trip with the Diehl’s, Brunner and crew had “a dozen follows or hits” during the course of a six-hour trip and caught a pair of big tiger muskies, including one “a tad over 50 inches.”
“The first couple days of the season we didn’t see too many fish,” said Brunner, who was enshrined as a legendary guide into the Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame last year. “I was a little bit concerned at first, but it’s back on track, now. There are plenty of fish out there and they’re all healthy. I haven’t seen a sick fish, yet.”
Capt. Steve Kunnath also takes clients out muskie fishing on Lake St Clair and said he’s having the best year in his five years on the lake.
“It usually starts slowly and peaks in midsummer, but every trip I’ve gone on so far we’ve gotten into muskies,” Kunnath said. “A lot of people get on my boat and start freaking out and asking all kinds of questions about the die-off, but I haven’t noticed any difference.“
Bob Haas, a research biologist at the Lake St. Clair Fisheries Research Station in Mount Clemens thinks the worst is probably over.
“We haven’t had any recent reports of unusual numbers of dead muskies floating around in the lake,” Haas said.
One note of concern, however, is another virus that has been detected in muskies and other fish in Lake St. Clair. Muskie pox (Piscirickettsia sp.), a viral infection, was first identified in Lake St. Clair’s muskie population in 2002, but is not thought to cause widespread mortality.
Since the die-off, several samples of different species of fish including muskie, northern pike, redhorse sucker, freshwater drum, and rock bass, were netted by biologists and sent to the MSU Aquatic Animal Health Lab in East Lansing for testing. The results have been disappointing.
“They tested a handful of fish and they all showed signs of viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS,” Haas told Michigan Outdoor News. “There was quite a die-off of freshwater drum (sheepshead) recently in Lake Erie and those fish tested positive for VHS, too. We don’t like to see any new diseases, but at this point there is no evidence it will threaten any species of fish.”
Biologists are watching and waiting.
VHS is a fish virus commonly found in Europe. It has been around for the better part of 60 years and was first identified in the United States in salmon in the Pacific Northwest. It is the source of the recent die-off of thousands of gobies and 18 muskies in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, as well as die-offs last year of freshwater drum and round gobies in the Bay of Quinte in Lake Ontario,
Health officials say VHS poses no threat to public health, but could cause additional problems for fish species, especially if they are stressed this summer by warmer-than-normal or rapidly changing water temperatures. It causes lesions, hemorrhaging, and loss of blood in infected fish.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Home Hooked on muskies: Monster fish makes comeback
Dave Spratt / The Detroit News
Published / September 7, 2007 / Front Page
ST. CLAIR SHORES - Scott Johnson has caught his share of bass and walleye, but when he decided to treat his father and son to a truly memorable fishing excursion, only one species would do: muskie.
So Johnson did some research, found a charter boat and struck gold. He, his father, Larry, and 8-year-old son, Blake, caught four muskies in a half-day of fishing on Lake St. Clair.
"That's a great day for muskie fishing," said Johnson, 36, of Carleton. "Anybody would love to go out and boat four fish, and our total fishing day was just 4-5 hours. It's pulling in trophies that are tough fish."
Dale G. Young / The Detroit News
Kevin Backus shows off a muskie caught in Lake St. Clair. The fierce fish can approach
70 pounds and attracts anglers from across the U.S.
To generations of anglers, muskies were the stuff of legend for their size, ferocity and above all, elusiveness. Muskies -- muskellunge, officially -- are like northern pike on steroids, a slimy slab of muscle, teeth and attitude. They can approach 70 pounds and have been known to take down ducklings, muskrats and the occasional small dog. Yet the average angler so rarely hooked a muskie it became known as the fish of 10,000 casts.
But that's not the case on Lake St. Clair these days. The muskie population is so robust that it supports an entire sportfishing industry, attracting anglers from across North America who want to test their skill against the legendary gamefish. Muskies have withstood a couple of bouts of disease and a long history of catch-and-kill fishing. They've gotten bigger and more numerous, thanks to a combination of cleaner water, better habitat and perhaps most importantly, a concerted effort by anglers to put muskies back in the water and let them grow.
It's paying off: Where a 30-pound fish was considered a monster 30 years ago, it takes a 40-pounder to really get today's muskie catchers buzzing.
"Thanks to catch-and-release, they're growing not only in numbers, but also in size," said Capt. Kevin Backus, who runs Mr. Muskie Charters and is the grandson of legendary muskie fisherman Homer LeBlanc, who pioneered many of the muskie fishing techniques still in use today on Lake St. Clair. "Back then a 30-pounder was a huge bar to set. Now people are going for 40-pounders. I want to catch a 50-pounder."
Bob Houlihan / The Detroit News
The lures used to catch the hefty muskies
can be as big as a man's forearm. Years
ago, it was common practice to shoot or
club the fish.
More trophy muskies caught
Exhaustive records kept by the Michigan Ontario Muskie Club (MOMC) bear out Backus' observations. From 1960 to 1988, there were never more than five 30-pound muskies caught in a single year. Since 2000 there have never been fewer than 15 trophy-sized muskies caught in a year, and the number topped 20 in 2000, 2003 and 2005.
This year there have already been 15 big muskies registered, and the fall -- the best season for catching really big muskies -- is still ahead. The largest muskie ever recorded on Lake St. Clair, a 41.85-pounder, was caught in the club's tournament last month.
"That was the biggest (muskie) I've ever seen," said MOMC Secretary Joe Finazzo, who was the tournament weighmaster. "I was in awe weighing it."
Part of the muskie population's resurgence can be attributed to the overall health of Lake St. Clair, according to Michael Thomas, a fisheries biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Beginning with the Clean Water Act of 1977, Lake St. Clair began to rid itself of the pollutants that make their way up the food chain. Invasive and destructive zebra mussels had a beneficial effect on the fishery by filtering the water and making it clearer. That, in turn, allowed more sunlight to reach the lake bottom, which promoted the growth of plants that are necessary for spawning and cover for a variety of desirable fish species.
"I think it's a pretty balanced system right now and that's reflected in the fishery," Thomas said. "The fact that you have a muskie fishery that draws people from across the country, and a bass fishery that supports tournaments, and a walleye fishery that supports a charter industry and a perch fishery that's still very viable. We have a really diverse fishery and it's a really great mix."
Future's bright for fishing
Steve Kunnath, who leads casting and fly-fishing excursions for muskie and other fish on St. Clair, says the health of the lake could mean even better muskie fishing in the future.
"Remember that it takes a muskie 20 or 25 years to reach a huge size," he said. "The big fish we're catching right now were juveniles when the water cleared and the fishing got better. Who knows how big they can get? We might not have reached the full potential yet."
But it's the way humans interact with the resource that has made St. Clair the muskie mecca it is today. Michigan's size limit on muskies is 42 inches; in Ontario it's 44 inches. That means even when an angler decides to keep and kill a fish, it's likely that it already had a chance to spawn, Thomas said.
But more important is the break from the old days of muskie fishing, where monthly tournaments meant dozens of muskies were removed from the lake for good. The tournaments continue, but these days it's rare for more than one or two fish to die during a tournament. That's a completely sustainable percentage, Thomas said.
Backus, who takes upwards of 70 muskie trolling excursions a year, perfectly embodies the generational sea change that the practice of handling muskies has undergone. In his grandfather's day, it was common practice to shoot muskies or stun them with a billy club "to calm them down before bringing them into the boat." The fish were typically eaten or hung on a wall.
But Backus' 31-foot boat, "Mr. Muskie Too," is equipped with a muskie-sized live well. Once a fish is boated, it immediately goes into the live well to restore oxygen to its gills and rejuvenate its muscles. Anglers are given strict instructions on how to handle the fish quickly and efficiently for pictures, then the fish is replaced in the live well. Once Backus is convinced the fish is back to full strength, it's returned to the lake.
Backus said he once jumped in the lake and spent 30 minutes reviving a fish.
Finazzo said that's fairly standard procedure for club members. He estimates that 80 percent of them have done it.
"We have no hesitation about going in the water," he said. "That's what it's about."
'It's a thriving population'
Muskie anglers had a scare in 2003 and again in 2006, when large numbers of the big fish were found floating dead once the winter ice thawed. Thomas said the 2003 die-off was probably caused by a bacterial infection. In 2006 the culprit was thought to be viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS, a disease thought to have entered the Great Lakes from ocean-going freighters. The long-term impact of VHS on all kinds of Great Lakes fish is still unknown.
But St. Clair's muskies appear to have withstood both attacks.
"In hindsight what we thought was a pretty major die-off appears to have not really affected the population," Thomas said.
The muskie captains say they're catching fish that range from 14 inches to more than 30 pounds, the best gauge that the population will remain healthy and balanced.
Thomas, the DNR biologist, agrees. "It looks like it's going to be a large part of the fishery for a long while," he said "It's safe to say it's a thriving population."
You can reach Dave Spratt at (248) 647-8307 or [email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Interesting that an exotic is credited for improving a situation, where a second exotic is credited for wiping out a small portion of that "gain". I guess ya take the good with the bad. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Virus ID'd as culprit in 2005 fish kills
Scientists say strain struck again in April
Dead fish litter the edge of Lake Erie on Port Clinton Beach.
( THE BLADE/AMY E. VOIGT )
Zoom | Photo Reprints
By JIM SIELICKI
BLADE STAFF WRITER
A virus strain responsible for the deaths of sheephead in Lake Ontario last year was as the cause of the massive die-off of freshwater drum, or sheephead, in western Lake Erie, a state biologist said yesterday.
Jeff Tyson, fisheries biology supervisor with Ohio's Sandusky Fish Research Unit, said investigators were able to identify relatively quickly the pathogen viral hemorrhagic septicemia because of an earlier experience with a fish kill in the Bay of Quinte in Lake Ontario in spring of 2005.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says viral hemorrhagic septicemia results in heavy fish mortality, a fact that was evident last month in Lake Erie when dead fish floated to the shores, creating a stink as the fish rotted on beaches.
Mr. Tyson said 2005 was the first time the virus was documented in fresh water.
The primary victims in the Lake Erie deaths were sheephead, a less-desirable type of fish. Other species were found dead as well, but the role of the virus may be limited, he said.
Separate strains of the North American virus have been identified in salmon and related saltwater species on the east and west coasts. A different strain has hurt the fish-farming industry in Europe.
"There may be other types we don't know yet," he said.
Viral hemorrhagic septicemia was found in a muskellunge caught from the Michigan side of Lake St. Clair in the spring of 2005, raising the possibility the strain is spreading, said Gary Whelan, fish production manager for the Michigan Department.
"We really don't know a lot about it," Mr. Whelan said from his office in Lansing. "It's pretty new, or it may have been here but we just have not detected it before."
He said learning the cause of death of a fish or other creatures can be difficult because the virus isn't always the primary cause.
Fish kills generally occur in spring and often are attributed to fluctuations in water temperatures. The fact that the winter was not particularly cold may have contributed to the increase of bacteria, which survived an extensive freeze, Mr. Tyson said.
The discovery of the infection in the muskie in Lake St. Clair may prompt state biologists who are raising game fish there for release in the wild may have to reconsider where they obtain their breed fish, and the source of water for the pens, Mr. Whelan said.
The virus has been found in the wild in fish such as mummichog, stickleback, striped bass, freshwater drum, and brown trout, researchers in Michigan said, saying there's no indication it constitutes a threat to public health at this point.
The North American VHS strain appears to be much less virulent to salmon and trout than the European VHS strain, Mr. Whelan said.
Finding the cause after a fish has died and decomposed presents quite a challenge in finding a cause of death, compared with examining a live, sick fish, biologists say.
"The disease does not express itself until something else attacks the immune system," Mr. Whelan said.
"Fish in the wild that are dead could have a lot of beasties in them. There's an awful lot of bacteria everywhere," he said.
Contact Jim Sielicki at:
[email protected]
or 419-724-6078
Attachments
----------------
Sheephead.bmp (112KB - 105 downloads)
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
|
Fish virus could wreak havoc on local waters
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
By John Myers; Duluth News Tribune
mutating fish disease that experts believe came to the eastern Great lakes in the ballast of saltwater ships will affect how some Minnesota and Wisconsin bait dealers and fish farms sell their stock this year and could decimate wild fish populations for decades to come.
The disease, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or VHS, has infected 27 species, killing fish this year from Lake St. Clair near Detroit into Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River and a New York lake.
VHS has not been found in Lake Superior, said Dennis Pratt, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Lake Superior fisheries expert. But officials say it could be here within a year or two if it’s moving in the ballast of ships.
Unlike exotic species that have found their way to the Great Lakes and have been slow to show their potential harm, VHS has shown its impact swiftly.
VHS was believed to be just a cold-water, mostly saltwater disease, killing species such as trout and salmon in Europe. But it has spread to the U.S. and is killing warm-water species such as drum and perch. The variation found in the Great Lakes, with the first fish die-offs reported this spring, has never been seen before.
“We’ve been testing for this disease and watching it for 30 years, mostly worrying about hatchery fish because of what it did to rainbow trout in Europe,’’ said Darryl Bathel, who heads the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources cold-water hatchery at French River. “But, instead, it’s come in on wild fish and, for the first time, it’s affecting cool- and warm-water species like perch and walleye and emerald shiners.’’
The problem has been so severe at times in the lower Great Lakes that it’s caused “windrows of dead fish on the shore 10 feet deep and three feet high,’’ Bathel said.
“Mortality can happen and it can happen on a massive scale,’’ Bathel said, adding that it could take a couple of generations before Great Lakes wild fish populations develop an immunity to the virus. “We really don’t know how much of an impact it will have on overall populations of the affected fish. We don’t even know all of the fish it might affect yet.’’
So far, the Great Lakes die-offs have occurred in shallow water when fish are spawning, which means an outbreak in the Twin Ports harbor could hurt the St. Louis River estuary’s population of gamefish such as walleye, pike, muskie and more — if it gets this far.
The picture so far is that, while many fish die off quickly as the disease hits, “enough survive that it won’t wipe out entire populations or species in any large water body,’’ said Jeff Gunderson, Minnesota Sea Grant educator. “But this is a virulent strain of the virus that already has shown it can mutate. It’s going to be an issue out there in the lake.’’
VHS was first reported in 1988 in the U.S. in spawning salmon in the Pacific Northwest. It was reported in North American freshwater fish in 2005 in muskies in Lake St. Clair and in freshwater drum from the Bay of Quinte on Lake Ontario.
Little can be done to stop the disease from spreading among wild fish. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in August called a summit on the disease. Aquatic biologists decided they need to find out more but had little advice on how to stop it.
Federal officials have taken steps to stop humans from moving the disease to inland lakes in other states. The U.S. Department of Agriculture last month imposed an immediate ban on interstate movement of any of 37 species of live fish from a Great Lakes state — including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, New York and Pennsylvania. The ban also prevents any live fish entering the U.S. from Ontario or Quebec.
So far, attention surrounding VHS has focused more on how the federal ban on moving fish will affect fish farms, hatcheries and bait wholesalers. While the ban won’t affect Northland anglers or most bait shops that get their bait in Minnesota, it has stopped bait wholesalers and fish farms from selling stock to other states at the time many were set to harvest and ship their stock.
“There’s a lot of hurt going on right now with people who can’t move their fish,’’ Bathel said.
Minnesota and Wisconsin fish farms, private hatcheries and bait wholesalers have been leaning on the federal government to relax the ban that could cost them big bucks. U.S. Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., asked the agency to rethink the outright ban.
That could happen as soon as this week, officials said, possibly allowing movement at least within the affected states. Within months, the federal government hopes to develop a verifiable method to test fish being transported.
Meetings were held last week in Washington to find a compromise, said Jim Rogers, spokesman for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service division of the Agriculture Department.
“The ultimate goal is to reopen the market … with the movement of fish that still guarantees diseased fish aren’t moved out of one of the infected states,’’ Rogers said.
If the disease enters captive fish populations in Lake Superior, as expected, the entire French River hatchery stock might have to be destroyed. The future of the hatchery would be in question, Bathel said.
The disease doesn’t affect people, but so far it’s been found to cause internal bleeding and death in 27 freshwater species. Before a die-off of muskies in Lake St. Clair last spring, the disease was found only in saltwater species. But it has since killed perch in lakes Ontario and Erie and muskies in the St. Lawrence River.
Scientists believe the saltwater disease got into the Great Lakes the same way as most foreign invaders — the ballast water of saltwater ships that enter the St. Lawrence Seaway. The virus is the first disease to cause major concern, following larger invasive species such as zebra mussels, goby, spiny water fleas and ruffe.
A federal judge has given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency two years to develop regulations to treat ballast water as water pollution and begin regulating its discharge under the Clean Water Act.
Industry and academic leaders are moving to develop the most effective ways to clean and treat ship ballast, but a cost-effective solution that would kill exotics as small as a virus hasn’t yet been found.
“It’s going to be a tough solution in the long run. In the short run we can try to get them to not exchange ballast at all in the (VHS) infected areas,’’ Bathel said.
'The problem has been so severe at times in the lower Great Lakes that it’s caused “windrows of dead fish on the shore 10 feet deep and three feet high,’’ Bathel said.' Great doom and gloom, published "facts". You would think Amy Voight would of took/found a better picture? | |
| | |
| The committee will hold a public hearing on the following items at the time specified below: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:00 AM 417 North (GAR Hall) State Capitol
Assembly Bill 641 Relating to: requiring the Department of Natural Resources to grant easements over certain lands. By Representatives Friske, Gunderson, Gronemus, Mursau, Meyer, Nerison, M. Williams, Bies, Townsend, Hahn, Ballweg, LeMahieu, Musser and Montgomery; cosponsored by Senator Roessler. Assembly Bill 672 Relating to: the minimum age for hunting and possessing a firearm, age specific restrictions for hunting and on possessing a firearm while hunting, requirements for obtaining a hunting certificate of accomplishment, establishing a hunting mentorship program, and granting rule-making authority. By Representatives Gunderson, Suder, Kreuser, Albers, Ballweg, Bies, Friske, Hraychuck, F. Lasee, LeMahieu, Lothian, Mason, Meyer, Moulton, Mursau, Musser, A. Ott, Strachota, Vos and Vruwink; cosponsored by Senators Vinehout, S. Fitzgerald, Kanavas and Kapanke. Clearinghouse Rule 06-005 Relating to laboratory certification and registration. Clearinghouse Rule 07-074 Relating to control of fish diseases and invasive species. In addition, the Committee may hold an Executive Session on Assembly Bill 187, Assembly Bill 543, Assembly Bill 602, Clearinghouse Rule 06-005, or Clearinghouse Rule 07-074 upon the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Representative Scott Gunderson Chair
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | As I said, I'll post the data collected by Larry Ramsell as soon as he gets it to me. Man did not 'create' the Muskie fishery in the Larry and Great lakes, on the contrary, we nearly ruined it with overharvest and pollution. When that was reversed, the fishery improved. As CPR became even more popular ( it is still not as popular on this water as many others) the size structure increased. The VHS infection over there was definitely the culprit for the 4000 plus fish dieoff. Keep in mind not all dead fish float, and the estimate came from floaters. Can you even imagine several thousand fish 44" average dead and floating? Are you trying to say you WANT VHS in our inland waterways and it was a GOOD thing to lose thousands of Muskies on St Clair? I sure haven't seen any biologist say that yet. or are you trying to say there were TOO MANY big muskies? That one would be a real stretch on the St no matter who you speak to.
I don't get the point of all the articles. Wrap it up for me, please.
Much the same happened on Bay of Green Bay up to the 'improved' part. Man nearly wiped out the native population of Great Lakes Strain muskies here, and a group of dedicated anglers from MI and the Muskie Alliance worked closely starting in 1989 with the WIDNR to re-introduce the fish. It's been a long and expensive process, but has, to this point, shown signs of success other than limited NR due perhaps to habitat destruction, water chemistry, or other issues yet unknown. I won't go into the rest, but a VHS infection in this population of Muskies would be a very bad occurrence no matter how small the losses of adult fish. Can we stop that in the Bay at this point? No. Can we slow the spread across the rest of the State? I hope so, but apparently some hope otherwise or are using the stance it's too annoying to even extend an effort so one can push the 'it's no big deal' platform.
The Detroit News articles are not white papers or scientific documents, nor do they address the actual effects on the effect of VHS on the population of muskies in the Larry and St.
If one chooses to post an article to make a point, I'd like to see us post the date it was published so it fits within the timeline of events.
Jayman, you may get a chance to go take the picture yourself and submit it to a followup article. I hope not, I really do.
To have the tremendous conservation efforts and tremendous results realized on the St and the Larry discounted to dismiss a disease here is pretty weak. I know what it took to get the overharvest, kill events, and size limits changed.
If we hadn't dirtied the waters there so severely with nitrogen rich pollutants and tons upon tons of run off particulate and factory pollution, sewage and other nice things, the Zebras would have not been looked upon in any favorable light at all.
| |
| | |
| sworrall:
"I don't get the point of all the articles. Wrap it up for me, please"
The point isn't that I don't care about the spreading of yet another invasive species, it's about the tactics that are being used to "slow down" the spread. My having to kill my VHS tested minnows after fishing a body of water that hasn't proven to be VHS positive or my having to kill my VHS tested minnows after fishing a body of water that has proven to be VHS positive and going back to that same body of water the next day or even the same day is what is being questioned. It's a blanket rule to make enforcement easy.
Trust in our Sportsmen!!! After all, the Sportsmen are not guilty of bringing in yet another invasive species.
It's a shame that because we question, you don't think we care.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Sworrall,
I never siad any cartoon involving VHS has been published yet. I am researching it because there were a few clients that would like it addressed. The cartoon is mainly a fun strip but more magazines and publications are starting to ask for more editorial type of material. Some of the magazines that it is published in are:
Great Lakes Angler
Bass Club Digest
American Bass Angler
Sticks and Stones Outdoor Adventures
Northwoods Sporting Journal
Outdoors Magazine
There are a lot smaller publications and a few newspapers. I am not at liberty to say which magazines want the VHS stuff until they give the ok to publish.
Agian, I am looking at this from a multi-state industry perspective and trying to get a bearing on VHS and believe it or not the greater share of shop owners, fisherman and even DNR personel, all of which is a lot that I have contact with, do not see this as the pressing, dooms day scenario that some do. I keep hearing the same thing, the fish kills involved to date have been a very small fraction of the overall fish populations and have not really affected the stability of the populations. In fact I keep hearing that all the fish have been recovering nicely.
Having all these DNR publications and letters counterdict each other doesn't help things either. I don't see the point that you have to take each document in context on who it was aimed at. If that was the case that in a statement directed at the general public stated one thing and another doucument directed towards scientist would state something different, that deffinatly would point to a cover-up. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | RedNeck Tech,
Thanks, Sir. by the way, I'm Steve, too.
Cover up??? That's actually funny. You miss the point, please allow me to explain. Timeline the articles, in order and to date, then look at what the 'question' was, what was being addressed. look at who the article was written by, for whom it was written, and what the expectations might have been by the author. Scientific papers are written in a completely different manner than articles in a blog, newspaper or magazine, and frequently quotes or data created by scientists are taken out of context by us laymen to try to apply them to our point of view. That, when seeking what is real and fact, is a big problem.
Cash, it sure sounds like some don't care; read the posts.
It's just a case of a correction by Mother Nature...etc., no big deal, just another over reaction...let it take it's course, the damage wasn't a big deal...no controls are needed...hmm.
I was making the point you can't ( or at least shouldn't expect to) have it both ways; if you DO care you should abide by the rules as written as we are expected to. If you decide to complain in the public domain, it is incumbent upon you to do so as an informed sportsman, or you MIGHT influence some other uninformed fellow to do something that IS harmful instead of the opposite.
I also was trying hard to make the point that the folks who handle this sort of thing for a living might just know more about the whole process than us sportsmen. That's why you go to a Doctor when you are sick, and hire an expert repair person when your freaking main sewer line takes a poo.
I find it interesting we unquestioningly trust scientists who tell us what vitamins to take or what sunscreen to use, but call biologists who have just as much education and working experience and have our ecosystem's best interest at heart idiots because we don't want to have to change the way we behave. Show me I'm wrong here....
It isn't the guy who lives by the law for whom the penalties are determined and applied, it's those who choose NOT to. Age old argument, but 'trusting' sportsmen and women is fine until it comes to biding by the law; then I'll rely on how our democracy has been operated since it's inception....the rule of law.
I don't trust all sportsmen to strip their trailer of Eurasian Milfoil even though it's the law and they KNOW they have some on the axle. I've seen these folks get nailed by volunteer lake association folks standing at the line at the landings. We now have Eurasian milfoil in quite a few N WI lakes screwing things up because some damned fool couldn't take a moment to clean off his rig...to annoying to deal with.
For the same reasons, I trust the majority abiding by the law because HAVING the law at least gets the attention of enough of us to slow down the overall spread of all invasives.
In short, it's a case of: "Trust everyone, but brand your cattle."
Again, my opinion. All of our opinions together wouldn't buy a cup of coffee, but that's another subject. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Just wanted to clear something up. I didn't mean to imply that there was a cover-up. But there are a lot of documents and or statements that are very close to each other as far as who they were intended for and still (at times) say two different things. | |
| | |
| sworrall:
If this virus (VHS) has the potential to be as deadly as you, the dept of ag and the dnr believe then they need to get radical in not only the category of bait, but in all aspects of control. Close down all boat and water craft use for two years. The burden of slowing down this deadly spread, if that is your belief, must be put upon all users. If you don't agree with this, then you must not believe VHS to be as big a problem as you make it out to be? This isn't practical you say? Then I say, dumping your minnows in situations where there is no chance of spreading VHS isn't practical either. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Up date.
I recieved a call from the DNR today regarding the golden shiner that had VHS symptoms. The DNR is not going to test it for VHS because golden shiners are not on the federal list of fish... but he siad that does not mean that it couldn't have VHS and in the future the golden shiner could be added to the list if it is proven that a number of them get the virus.?? They are going to chalk it up to a different virus. He also told me that he was corrected, frozen and dead fish can be tested for VHS but they prefer live over dead.
My question is... if there is even a slite chance that a golden shiner could have VHS (and it is not out of the realm of possibilty) why take the chance and not test it? It is not even going to be determined what other virus it could be if it is something different. Not placing blame but this is a pretty good sized hole for such a deadly virus.
If VHS is as deadly as some say and has really harmed fish populations as some seem to think then why not stop fishing for those particular fish for a while and let the population recoup? I don't hear anything even close to that. When the perch population in Lake Michigan dropped like a rock the DNR, rightfuly so, drastically change the bag limits on perch on the lake. I have not heard of any drastic changes for this year (if I am wrong I apologize) so one can assume that the fish population had no adverse affect place upon it by VHS. I would assume that any fish population on any particular lake that had a VHS break out would have a big change in regulations if the population was remotely in any danger.
Steve | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Redneck,
Sorry man, but you said it, clear as the font it was typed in.
Why are you taking it to the 'stop fishing for the species effected' edge? No one has said any one population has been damaged that much YET, right? If, however, enough of a kill happens in any one water body to threaten the population, you may just see that regulation as a temporary measure. Another kill in the thousands of adult muskies on the St, for example, could easily create new regs for Muskie harvest there.
The idea OBVIOUSLY is to stop transportation of bait contaminated by water from an infected water body to waters not yet contaminated. YOU may be conscientious enough to make sure that doesn't happen, but there's plenty of folks who just might not be. When you leave your house tomorrow, I bet you see a speed limit sign in your neighborhood, right? Now most folks KNOW it's stupid to speed around in a neighborhood where there are kids and folks in the streets, right? So why is there a sign? To hold the folks who would speed and cause damage to the law, let 'em know the obvious, and enforce same.
Not quite the same analogy, but I'm sure you get that point.
Also, I made the point several times and several ways that scientists across the effected range have expressed they are very concerned, but NO ONE has yet said they were 'positive' what the long term effects will be.
As study and the near future gives us all a better barometer where this infection is headed in the infected waters, and how much damage can and does occur over the next couple years, I'm betting the regulations will change one way or the other. I hope things go 'our' way on most of our lakes and rivers in general, but I'm one not willing to bet the farm on that outcome.
Cash, think about it, the regs in place basically, if followed to the letter, do what your suggestion does, just without the severe restrictions you describe. Fish have to be dead, bait has to be dead, and no water in the buckets of either. Can't dump bait anywhere in the water, must kill it and dispose of it ashore.
If the population of any of the panfish or gamefish in any infected waters is hurt badly enough, I bet Steve will see exactly what he offers up happen.
I sure hope that isn't in our future.
By the way, Cash, I don't KNOW what the effect of this virus will be long term. Do you?
I'd like to see us err on the side of caution. If everything is just ducky in a couple years and there are no outbreaks or spread of the disease, I'll be a happy guy.
It's going to suck if it goes the other way, no matter what you or I think.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Sworrall
You have constantly been saying to take all documents and DNR statement in the context for which they were written... now please do the same with comments such as mine. You are taking things out of context. I am pointing out absurdity in the law with absurdity. There is no fisherman that would say stop fishing, but on the same line if one is going to try to point out that a situation is very dire and at the same time is unwilling to lay his hobby on the table for a while then the situation can not be that bad.
You are right, IF a big enough musky kill happened on ST. Claire there could be reg. changes...as of right now there has been only one kill and nothing since and no regulation changes. You cannot base science on un-answered questions.
Science is supposed to be based on fact, and there are plenty of facts that show that VHS hasn't had that much of an impact on wild fish populations. Even on the musky, even with the knowlage that Musky populations anywhere are always much, much lower than any other fish but that is the nature of musky. Any population of any living organisim will brush off a 2% - 4% kill unless it is endanger of extintion.
You must also keep in context where the very harmful or total population kills in fish from VHS have all been...in fish farms, not the wild. Europe has had VHS for decades and it did not desimate the wild fish there. They still fish heavily.
Steve | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Maybe we should worry more about our own species than a few muskies????
Plague a growing but overlooked threat: study By Michael Kahn
Mon Jan 14, 8:06 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Plague, the disease that devastated medieval Europe, is re-emerging worldwide and poses a growing but overlooked threat, researchers warned on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
While it has only killed some 100 to 200 people annually over the past 20 years, plague has appeared in new countries in recent decades and is now shifting into Africa, Michael Begon, an ecologist at the University of Liverpool and colleagues said.
A bacterium known as Yersinia pestis causes bubonic plague, known in medieval times as the Black Death when it was spread by infected fleas, and the more dangerous pneumonic plague, spread from one person to another through coughing or sneezing.
"Although the number of human cases of plague is relatively low, it would be a mistake to overlook its threat to humanity, because of the disease's inherent communicability, rapid spread, rapid clinical course, and high mortality if left untreated," they wrote in the journal Public Library of Science journal PloS Medicine.
Rodents carry plague, which is virtually impossible to wipe out and moves through the animal world as a constant threat to humans, Begon said. Both forms can kill within days if not treated with antibiotics.
"You can't realistically get rid of all the rodents in the world," he said in a telephone interview. "Plague appears to be on the increase, and for the first time there have been major outbreaks in Africa."
Globally the World Health Organization reports about 1,000 to 3,000 plague cases each year, with most in the last five years occurring in Madagascar, Tanzania, Mozambique, Malawi, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The United States sees about 10 to 20 cases each year.
More worrying are outbreaks seem on the rise after years of relative inactivity in the 20th century, Begon said. The most recent large pneumonic outbreak comprised hundreds of suspected cases in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2006.
Bubonic plague, called the Black Death because of black bumps that sometimes develop on victims' bodies, causes severe vomiting and high fever. Victims of pneumonic plague have similar symptoms but not the black bumps.
Begon and his colleagues called for more research into better ways to prevent plague from striking areas where people lack access to life-saving drugs and to defend against the disease if used as a weapon.
"We should not overlook the fact that plague has been weaponized throughout history, from catapulting corpses over city walls, to dropping infected fleas from airplanes, to refined modern aerosol formulation," the researchers wrote. (Reporting by Michael Kahn; Editing by Maggie Fox and Ibon Villelabeitia)
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Steve, I'll try to "wrap it up". My point with the articles first is since my opinion is not welcomed by some. I'll cite other "published" articles since that seems to be a measureing stick around here.
The articles themselves taken in context cite that St. Clair has "bounced back". And that there has been more than one fish kill in recent years. One is a guide and is not a fisheries expert. But if we're entitled to discount this persons opinion who fishes the actual body of water. Well, then we should just give Capt. Dan the boot since he clearly would be speaking mearly on opinion and not on fact and his opinions would mean nothing. No offense Capt. Dan, you and I may not always agree, but I still read your posts and listen to your point of view. That's my point here. So let's give creedence to the St. Clair guide who says the fishery is fine. Can we?
Secondly, many here keep referencing "thier" expert, fisheries biologist, DNR personnel. etc. etc. The article with the picture, mearly a factual article of what did happen. The following article, where Darryl Bathel, who heads the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources cold-water hatchery at French River cites a much larger "doom & gloom" approach. My point, these experts aren't perfect, they do make mistakes. And for us to take every word as gospel, I think would be nieve (opinion). and No, I'm not bashing the DNR here. I think Kendall Kamke is probably the best DNR biologist Winnebago has ever seen. But I'm pretty sure even Kendall would be willing to admitt that he once made a mistake in his life.
Next, and mostly opinion, the St. Clair fishery is not a normal muskie fishery. If it was, why don't we build some "super fisherys" for muskies here in WI, IL, MN, IN, Canada? This could easily be done by an overload of stocking right? Double digit # of catches would be the norm? It's simply a predator/prey relationship and population cycles, what many don't think about is disease is still part of that predator/prey relationship, it works more in a reversed manner than we are used to thinking. When a certain species reaches a high point in the population cycle, something will balance it. This has been going on since the dawn of time. Bubonic plague is blamed on rodents, the rodents during mid-evil times of europe were at populations highs, humans were an innocent bystander. Mother nature doesn't care what gets in the way, it just finds balance.
Lastly, why must you insinuate that people don't care if they don't agree with the DNR? Would you feel the same way if the 4000 muskies were carp? It's quite clear that some muskie fishermen are a bit nuerotic about "thier" fish. And heaven forbid one fish dies. I could see how from that point of view, that 4000 dead muskies would seem as extreme as the Nazi holoucost of exterminating Jews.
I know we won't agree, and I enjoy lively debate, but let's not press agenda's.
Peace! | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Jayman,
Good point! I bet the CDC would freak out big time if 4000 fatal cases of plague showed up in Detroit. Sure, biologists make mistakes. I never said they don't, I made the point I'd trust them to make decisions on our fisheries before I'd trust you or RedNeck, or cash, or me. I take offense not at folks opinions, I take offense at folks taking unwarranted PUBLIC shots at those biologists that are based on total bunk, and if the biologists were here talking and took an unwarranted shot at you, my reaction would be the same. I ask everyone in this debate to use factual information to argue, or openly admit they have none and are only wishing to complain or support the regs because they feel like it. That's the very nature of an open discussion.
I'll get the Lake St Clair population figures for you to put them in context with other World Class Muskie fisheries, and post them here. Answer to your why we don't 'build' super fisheries for muskies...Bay of Green Bay, Mille Lacs, Vermilion, lakes across the country now putting out numbers or big muskies depending on management goals, etc. and efforts underway elsewhere...look into it, you may be pleasantly surprised. Sure, St is a destination, but many true Trophy fisheries are just now coming of age, and the ST needed more restrictions on harvest to hit that level. it's on it's way, we will see.
No, an 'overload' of stocking won't necessarily build a super fishery. The reverse commonly has occurred, in fact.
As to the reference to the outbreak on St Clair, sure I'd be upset if they were carp on the St and the virus was proven to kill muskies too, that would be perceived as a HUGE dodged bullet and a serious incident. The argument isn't whether you either agree with, or do not agree with the DNR, it's whether you feel the virus is as much a threat as those folks and other agencies apparently do. Those who disagree and feel the disease is not a big deal can have at it saying that all they wish, but need to back that with something other than 'stupid agencies, those guys are "@#$%^' rhetoric. I didn't say anything at all about disagreeing with anyone indicating whether you 'care' about the fishery, I said I personally feel VHS is too much a threat to take lightly, and in light of that can't see why others wouldn't at least consider that possibility. In my mind, saying VHS is something that should be handled by us laymen, no regs should be implemented, and all of us sportsmen should just ignore the whole thing and call those who don't fools is reckless and unwise. AND, I've expressed a ton of times this is my opinion.
The rest of the reference is ridiculous and offensive. Bad choice for a comparison, I'd edit that if I were you.
RNT,
We are talking about why the regulations are in place right now and why they are there, and I don't find them absurd as you do and find it distracting to the facts of the matter to answer debate with absurdities; there's the core of our differences.
Think of Lake St Clair as a very large country. In a segment of that country there is a viral outbreak. Several thousand of the adult residents of that area die. No one is sure if there will be another outbreak in the near future, or how bad it will be.
Now think about Lake Michigan, Bay of Green Bay, and the FOX, plus the Winnebago system, and apply the same logic there. The agencies release documents all along from the first outbreak to the last over just a few seasons, tying together details outbreaks and identifying what happened as this spread.
Our DNR decides to take emergency action when an outbreak occurs here based on what the agencies dealing with this virus know about what can happen in inland lakes and waterways when an outbreak hits, witness the Michigan inland lake. The DNR openly communicates this is interim while the impact of this virus, a different strain than that in Europe, is assessed. The rules are then put in place.
A whole bunch of folks simply adapt. Some folks decide to help get the word out and behave pro actively. Another group decides to complain about it out in the public, and insist everyone else is over reacting.
There's your debate.
There's context. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Good points, Steve. I think were in agreement on the VHS. I just choose to complain. But my complaint, I believe still comes with merit.
The DNR enacted an emergency order against fishermen on controlling the spread of VHS. The reason they did this is because they can. Weather it's effective or not is another arguement. But if the DNR can rule an emergency order against fishermen, why don't they do the same against the salty going freighters on the Great Lakes? It's clearly been blamed on nearly every front by the DNR, EPA, FDA etc. etc.. They don't because when you boil it down. It'll get tossed out of court and laughed at. This is where I have a huge problem. And I will continue to complain, perhaps some day this squeaky wheel will get greased.
As for St Clair, out of the "super fisheries" cited, I think GB stands a good chance to become the next St Clair. I also think we're setting ourselves up for "disaster" when something trys to "balance" the situation. Opinion via Crystal ball view.
VHS will come and VHS will go, this because it's a virus. A virus where the host can develope immunity. No, not all will survive, but the population as a whole will. In the mean time, while we fight to prevent the spread of this one exotic. How many more will be introduced? Big picture of it all, we're on the losing end right now. Am I complaining? Sure. But I think it's not that far from the truth.
We should debate perception next, I have not voted on Rich S' poll. I find it interesting how the results are going, by mostly people that are in the know. There are far more people who do fish that are not in the know. A friend I fished with this weekend I asked him if he understood the VHS rule and to kill his minnows. He did not know. I would say he fishes more than the average person, but not anywhere's close to the vast majority of WF visitors. "Perception is everything". BTW, fishing was slow.
Edited by Jayman 1/15/2008 11:00 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | The GL Strain of Muskies in Green Bay is not being 'created', it's being restored. The density there will not ever be high enough to need 'correction', especially now VHS and all the interstate bans on fish transfers is in place.
You just nailed where this confuses me the most, the DNR did WHAT? Agianst??? That's the problem, in a nutshell, some folks identify any regulation they don't like as 'against' their right to fish they way they wish, when it's actually designed and intended to CONSERVE that very same resource for those very people, and, the rest of us, too, I guess.
The federal Government needs to create new regs controlling freighters and other internationally owned and operated shipping, and enforce them without an unfunded mandate to the States. And, some of the Great Lakes are Canadian controlled.
VHS may 'go', we will see. it's already here, so the other part is proven.
We are arguing perception.
Wish I was fishing now, slow fishing beats work any day....
Lake St Clair:
670 Square miles of surface area
Source: http://www.great-lakes.net/lakes/stclairReport/summary_00.pdf
Acreage converted: 428,800
Estimated Muskie population: 100,000
Source: MIDNR quotes, need to confirm
density: .2332089 per acre
Density generally seen in trophy fishery: .3 approx or less, see Research Forum MuskieFIRST for in depth discussion.
Webster Lake, Indiana population density: estimates average 5 per acre.
Pelican Lake, Oneida County WI, 50" limit: .3 per acre est.
OK, lets say a lake like Lake George, with a 40" limit and around 500 acres is infected. Since the surface area is so small, the infection is going to be much more likely to be systemic. There may be 5 or 6 top tier Muskies in there, and a very few really big walleyes. Good chance we would lose a large portion of the population, and it takes 12 years to build it back. That would be a hit, in my mind, that is worth trying our best to help to avoid.
A fellow is fishing Muskies on Winnebago coming from Cauldron, and bought 4 $5.00 suckers there. He decides to keep his suckers in his livewell (breaking the law) heads up the Green Bay and trolls, keeping his suckers alive using his baitwell pump, then heads to Vilas or Oneida for the rest of the week. He fishes George, using suckers now infected by the virus, and loses one when rigging it. He dumps the suckers a couple days later in Little John.
See what could happen? I know a bunch of guys who move around that much for 'eyes and muskies. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| I don't find the rules in them selves absurd, I find them inaffective if VHS is as bad as people state. If your going to take the stand that VHS is very bad but then you make regulations with very big gapping holes in them, that is what I find and mean by absurd.
Goverment agencies are well known for overblowing things. Since you brought up the human factor take the bird flu virus in Asia. In three years under 50 people died in all of Asia from the virus and it went nowhere else, but look at the stink that gov. agencies and scientists made it out to be, it was supposed to kill tens of thousands if not more so they made flu shots for everyone in the country even though they didn't even know if it would even work. The virus issue didn't go away because of goverment, it went away because a virus is a virus.
I really would like any official document to point to that brings up one case of VHS in the world that devistated any wild fish populations or point out where any wild fish populations that had VHS didn't recover.
I am trying to keep this in perspective but you can't have anything tagged as devistating without some sort of proof. In this case, what lake or body of water had the wild fish population desimated from VHS. I see all these lakes and areas that have an outbreak but I don't see where they are saying the fish population is in trouble or it won't or hasn't recovered.
Lastly I have been pro active on this, I have reported possible VHS deaths. Since when does questioning a law that doesn't do what it is supposed to do considered complaining? I'm not a robot that just adapts when something is amiss. And of coarse people will bring the issues up in public, what are they supposed to do? Sit in a closet and say nothing while regulations that have more holes than a wiffle ball are being put in place?
Steve | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| "A fellow is fishing Muskies on Winnebago coming from Cauldron, and bought 4 $5.00 suckers there. He decides to keep his suckers in his livewell (breaking the law) heads up the Green Bay and trolls, keeping his suckers alive using his baitwell pump, then heads to Vilas or Oneida for the rest of the week. He fishes George, using suckers now infected by the virus, and loses one when rigging it. He dumps the suckers a couple days later in Little John. "
Steve, I'm very much in agreement that your scenario is likely to happen. Even with the new emergency rules, that scenario is still very likely. Yet they'll "ding" a couple people this spring to "make examples of" and sour the public's perception of the DNR on something they don't totally understand. AND.......and the spread of VHS continues. Yes? No?
Further speculation the same person/people that get "dinged" will be sitting at thier local watering hole b!@#hing about the DNR and thier fine and how they were "screwed over". Anyone ever here this "story" before? | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Agreed. I hope the new regs will discourage this imaginary fellow. | |
| | |
| sworrall:
Let's say the same friend of yours buys suckers from a bait shop in Eagle River, fishes Lake Buckatoban....decides to move, keeping his suckers in his live well, fishes Pelican Lake and then moves to Clover Leaf Lakes. What harm has he caused? Having never touched a body of water that has been VHS positive...the FACT is he hasn't caused any problems.... | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | 'Lastly I have been pro active on this, I have reported possible VHS deaths. Since when does questioning a law that doesn't do what it is supposed to do considered complaining? I'm not a robot that just adapts when something is amiss. And of coarse people will bring the issues up in public, what are they supposed to do? Sit in a closet and say nothing while regulations that have more holes than a wiffle ball are being put in place?'
What. exactly, will the law as written fail to do?
First you say the law is not necessary.
The disease is no big deal.
The regulatory agencies are overblowing the whole thing.
Let Nature take her course.
A virus is a virus and won't be a future issue.
Then it's the law may not be strict enough? Which is it, or are you just tossing mud at the wall to see which bus has rounder wheels?
I already covered, about a dozen times, the 'devastating' issue you keep tossing out there. The inland lake in MI was hit pretty hard. I won't go through the issues of this infection being a couple years old on the ST and entirely unknown what future effects might be, and I ask you again, do you feel the spread of the virus to inland WI lakes and rivers is a good thing? If not, what measures would you suggest to avoid that happening? If you suggest no measures be taken, why? If you suggest tighter controls be put in place, what would those be and why?
Also, I would suggest you take a look at all my posts, see where I have made comments about folks who choose only to complain, and see if those comments actually might apply to you personally before assuming they do.
It's one thing voicing an issue, quite another to abuse a person or persons in the process with the goal of making your point seem stronger. Wouldn't you agree?
Cash,
When the guy is stopped at the landing leaving with live bait, say maybe in Stevens Point, exactly how is the enforcement officer to know where he got the bait, and when, and where he's been since?
There you have it.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I still believe that the bait issue will be the least of the problems in spreading vhs. I believe pleasure boaters will move more of this around than anything. I have a inside track on these people. Also, Bud Lake Michigan, unless there are 2 bud lakes, it is a inland lake. The funny part is, there are a few touring tournament fisherman who live near this lake. I wonder how it got in there?
My beliefs on the disease aside, the fact of the matter is, boaters will carry this around a heck of alot more than the fishermans bait. Heck, the fishermans boats will do a better job.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| oh and steve don't forget to tell your friend that not all the lakes in WI have been tested for VHS so he could be picking up the virus with those VHS free tested minnows wherever he goes without knowing about it and would have a higher probability of infecting those other waters with a live fish than the water he is spreading around! There you have it in a big nut shell.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
| Tyee:
I suppose these are FACTS that you are spreading around about bait rather than water being the main connection between the spreading of VHS? Seems funny that bait is and has been used in every body of water in the State of Wisconsin, but the only VHS positive waterways in the State of Wisconsin have a direct link to The Great Lakes and the water brought in from across the ocean.... I sold frozen Herring for years and they were used on many lakes around....
Since this rule is in force because the sportsmen can't be trusted maybe EVERY car should be equipped with a breathalizer unit before you can start the engine. Blanket rule to stop drinking and driving.... | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| "What. exactly, will the law as written fail to do?"
Answer: Doesn't allow the DNR (the actual agency that should be incharge of the fish comming out of farms) the enforcement mechanism to deal with the minnows comming from hatcheries.
"First you say the law is not necessary."
Answer: Over reaching
"The disease is no big deal."
Answer: No, I siad VHS does not pose a devistating effect as some have made it out to be.
"The regulatory agencies are overblowing the whole thing."
Answer: No, I siad Goverment agencies are well known for overblowing things, take the phrase in context for which it was written with the subject of the pharagraph in mind.
"Let Nature take her course."
Answer: Yes, nature will always find a balance for it's self.
"A virus is a virus and won't be a future issue."
Answer: Where did I say it won't be a future issue? The DNR even states the fish will build an immunity to this virus just like any other virus.
"are you just tossing mud at the wall to see which bus has rounder wheels?"
Answer: Come on now, is that how a different opinion is handled.
"It's one thing voicing an issue, quite another to abuse a person or persons in the process with the goal of making your point seem stronger. Wouldn't you agree?"
Answer: Serious? What abuse on this end? Before one points out there is an elephant in the room one should make sure they are not the elephant. You have made some of the strongest remarks about the group of people who don't see eye to eye with you.
Look, like you I have talked to DNR biologists, wardens and others involved in this issue. Apparently the only difference is that my contacts must have gotten their education from a Cracker Jack box.
| |
| | |
| What can anglers and boaters do to help stop the spread of this pathogen? All of
the recommended ways to prevent the movement of aquatic nuisance species (i.e.
zebra mussels) will help prevent the spread of this pathogen. The use of a bleach
solution (1/2 cup to 5 gallons) to disinfect and clean boats, bilges and gear is very
effective in killing VHSv as is completely drying items in the sunlight for 4-6
hours. Cleaning of larger equipment with bleach or other household disinfectants
and power-washing boat hulls then drying the boats and gear in the sun for 4-6
hours is very effective at reducing and eliminating this pathogen. It is also
critical not to and is currently illegal to move live fish between waterbodies, in
particular baitfish, along with any water so be sure to empty live wells and bilges
upon leaving any waterbody. These measures will help control the spread of this
pathogen along with many other aquatic nuisance species.
If bait users can't be trusted...can we trust boaters to follow the rules? If it means drastic measures....ban boating and watercraft use unless boats and or watercraft have been inspected and certified safe.......
sworrall: In your scenario about the guy using suckers for muskies in different water bodies.....did he follow the above methods for treating and cleaning his boat before moving from one water body to the next? If not....he's just as guilty.....
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Call it fact if you wish or call it opinion, makes no difference to me. Everything I have read leads ME to believe that an alive fish can hold and manufacture the virus longer and spread it further than small amounts of water. Call it coincidence if you wish but that is the same perception that our DNR has accepted.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/documents/mikestaggsletter.pdf
I believe everyone here has generated a great discussion but still can't fathom why a person wouldn't follow a simple rule such as ensuring that no live fish leaves the waters edge if it MIGHT prevent one small 50 acre lake from (possibly) being "heavily impacted/whiped" out?
There are thousands of places where people can't purchase live bait and they net their own prior to fishing for the day, This is common practice in southern and midwestern states, maybe thats because of the price increases they have seen from all these regulations..(insert chuckle).
Could it be possible that the forcing of testing bait farms is feard to raise the price so high that it reaches a point where one has to resort to catching their own and now the common fisherperson will be more likely to cherish those little creatures and use them sparingly elsewhere just purely due to economics............
Good Luck
Tyee
| |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | OK, then:
'All documents involving VHS in the begining state that VHS was discovered in trout farms in the 1940's, the word discoverd does have a meaning. Sorry but yes, the DNR and Enviromental Protection Agency holds the biggest bag of responsability on this. I wouldn't expect something to be done in 1945 but 65 years is an long time to do nothing.'
'I'm not sure exactly how it got to Winnebago, there are many ways including Waterfowl carring fish eggs and insect larvae in from Michigan. The Winnebago system is conected to Michigan, it could be very easy for a bird to carry an infected fish or two over the dam and dropped it into the Fox. I am sure it is a multitude of ways it got here. I just don't see a devistating effect that calls for all these new Federal and State regulations. Mother Nature has a way of equilizing everything. The DNR does go to certian lakes and kill off the lake or just a particular fish like bullheads and that is concidered good!?'
'My comments are stricktly comming from my view behind the scenes in all of the above fields. The DNR has been slow to non-responsive to any threat that comes to this state until it hits and it is too late. When they do respond it is in gross overdose of what is needed. The VHS is an issue but it is not such a threat that there needs to be all this regulations and heafty fines. As I stated earlier, in Europe VHS is a big concern in the fish farms due to the dense population in them but in the wild it has had a min. effect.'
Cash, as a matter of fact alot of the Muskie anglers do exactly that. Is that a problem for you?
'You might ask why the DNR would place regulations in effect for the hell of it but then think, why did they go to all the farm fields and proclaim that any drainage ditch that would have more than a foot of water standing in them for 2 days was now a navagable water way and the farmers could not plant crops within 15' of them. How about recently the DNR comming up with regulations about docks being in 3 feet of water and the docks are not for fishing, diving or relaxing?'
'There always have been fish kill offs in one fasion or another. Sheephead have always died in spring and summer (maybe not as large of one as this past year). Mother nature has always found a balance for her own problems, it's when peolple who think they know better get involved and may solve one problem but opens a Pandora's box on many others. Hatch lake in Iola used to have a kill off of northern every spring. To stop that the DNR installed a pump to force air in the lake. Sure, it stopped northern from dying in the spring but it also lowered the panfish because of all the northern and made the weeds grow out of control. Then they killed off all the bullhead which created even more problems. Solve one problem and create three others.'
'1) Seeming VHS is most common where there are an abundants of fish then why not thin the herd, by allowing smaller fish to be taken by the ever increasing fishermen, that would decrease the population and slowing drasticaly VHS spread.
2) Stop allowing so many fisherman from fishing the musky. Only allow a certian number to fish, have a lottery or manage it like sturgeon spearing. This would decrease one of the strains on the musky population if it is truley an issue.'
'My issue has to do with the over regulation of fishing. What makes anyone think that the regulations stop here? There is a good possibility that an argument could be made that there is no way to stop the spread of VHS so let's ban fishing all together to stop it.'
'Let's face it, the DNR is known for botching things up like eco-systems. Just look at Lake Michigan, it has one huge un-natural eco-systems in the nation. Pretty much every native species that is in the lake is becomming ever so increasingly hard to find, like perch. It is the non-native spiecies that are abundant, and a lot of them the DNR planted in there. There is a good sized group of bio's that say the lake should be brought back to it's natural fish but it is the sport fisherman that is agianst it because they like the salmon, it plays better on the end of the line. This is causing havoc on the lake. The lake needs fish to be planted every year to keep the population. A lake of that size is unable to naturaly support itself due to what? Nature? No, the miss management of the lake. The last I looked the DNR has a huge chunk of that responsability.'
'My issue is the DNR does not truely adress an issue until it arrives and then the action is regulating the heck out of things.'
'I do not see the DNR as being pressured by the public in reality. With the laws they put into place with such things as docks, land usage, farm field drainage ditches and numberous others including deer hunting issues, they do as they please no matter how big the out cry from the public is.'
'In short, they have the responsability and power to manage our natural resouces. With that, their laps along with the EPA are where the blame falls on things like this. I do not believe they can brush aside the finger pointing, they are the managers. I do trust that if the DNR was an elected office position the reactions to these concerns would be quite different. They are not truely accountable to anyone and they do act like it. Not saying all thing from the DNR are bad but when the actions do nothing to truely deal with the issue, I will call it to the carpet.'
'Bio's all over keep stating this will most likly take the coarse of any other virus. The fish will build an immunity. If they didn't there would have been a fish kill in Lake St. Claire last year and there wasn't. Did any fish virus have a longterm negative impact anywhere...no. Is CWD having a longterm negative impact...no. Did west nile virus have a longterm negative impact on birds...no. A virus is a virus and over-reacting to it does just as much harm as not reacting.'
'What would I do? Let nature take it's coarse. It is unreasonable to think that nature can't take care of it's self with this virus and only the DNR has a plausable solution. No fish virus has ever desimated a wild population, we still have all the game fish in this country as we have had, in fact probable more of a population. For every reaction there is an equal reaction and when man trys to be the mastermind in nature the reaction is usually not good.'
'There was no kill from VHS. The first musky kill ever reported was only 4 to 12 muskies. If there was any kill they would have recorded it nomatter how small the number.'
'The DNR does a lot of good and have a lot of good regulations but when it comes to invasives they always look like they are in a cluster and just shooting arrows into the dark hoping they get a hit. I'm not bashing but I do want to lay out the history I am looking at.'
'It amazes me that there is a concern that DNR officials won't post for the fear of being bashed and all along there is a bashing of the ordinary citizen making them appear stupid. Much less bashing someone trying to have a discusion when you fully don't realize who that person may be. It is no wonder the DNR stirs such negative reactions out of people when they are looked upon as stupid or not important. The DNR may not say that but the staunch supporters of the DNR apparently do. Some may have good information but the debating skills need a lot to be desired.'
'I am starting a series in my cartoon that is going to deal with VHS and the different state's DNR and the way they are viewed and I want to thank all that have debated with me. The opinions and information was vast.'
'You could resonably say that the DNR has helped in the spread of VHS.
I happened to take plenty of pictures of the minnow for the record. It clearly shows the bleeding and eyes. Am I supposed to just sit on this if the DNR does nothing? Just because it may make the DNR look bad does that mean I shouldn't bring this to the attention of other influences in the industry. This is i huge blunder whether it be a person or policy. You cannot say you are very concerned about VHS if this incident does not raise a major concern with you.'
'Show me the DNR addressing the natural planting of VHS by birds and being concerned about a very possible VHS case in minnows and then I will take this more seriously than what at this moment I can.'
'Having all these DNR publications and letters counterdict each other doesn't help things either. I don't see the point that you have to take each document in context on who it was aimed at. If that was the case that in a statement directed at the general public stated one thing and another doucument directed towards scientist would state something different, that deffinatly would point to a cover-up'
And so on. Doesn't take rocket science to see where you are coming from here.
Sure, I see your point, but as I have said a bunch of times, I don't know what the overall effect of a VHS outbreak on Pelican might be and neither do you, and on that note I'm hoping like mad I never have to find out. I support proactive actions to slow the spread, and that's about that. If that's 'doomsday' by your definition, then OK, guilty as charged.
You posted you are here looking for fodder for your cartoons and articles. I just want to make sure any fodder you collect here is based in fact and reality as much as possible.
| |
| | |
| Tyee:
I will keep the price of minnows as low as I possibly can. The problem is the dumping of UNINFECTED minnows. In your site posting the DNR says INFECTED bait fish. It's an assumption that every fisherman will use already tested and quarantined minnows in an infected body of water. This assumption is not correct and if a fisherman only fishes in a water body that has already been infected, how is he causing any further infection to the system? | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | How do YOU personally control where that fellow goes fishing next with his bucket of bait?
Tyee, I think you said it. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Cash I can't see how a person only fishing infected waters could spread the disease that is quite obvious, but how do you prevent them from possibly fishing other waters if he so chooses and using those "possibly" infected minnows elsewhere.
Or better yet how do you write a regulation that insures that a person fishing infected waters CAN only fish infected waters? Believe me there was discussion on allowing boats to only be used on certain waters, if this were done would we all have argued that the DNR has taken this "serious" threat too far? I'll take the minnow regulation over the alternative!
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 319
| Yes, I do have strong opinions. Agian taking segments of what I siad without taking into concideration on what the subject was or what the comments were before it does not reflect all the points trying to be made nor the context. All peoples comments have not been in lock step through-out this debate.
Example: The original musky kill on St Claire was posted as 5000, then 4000, then a publication link stated 2000 to 4000.
Regulations are regulations, they have to be followed. Never disputed that. I live on Lake Winnebago, I have to kill minnows when I leave my shore front even though I will be fishing on the lake tomarrow and my garage is 50' away from shore. Make sense? No, but I have to do it.
Trying to find fodder with fact, can't quite say I fully found it here. | |
| | |
| Tyee:
How do you make sure that a person follows the steps to disinfect their boat and or equipment and lets it dry for 4-6 hrs. before entering another body of water?
Isn't this the same? If this was talked about at the meetings you mentioned, then it must have been considered as a possible way to infect a system. Too harsh for the big boys, those that use the system for pleasure boating? Don't tell me that they aren't capable of spreading VHS from system to system...... | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | I posted every comment with the full paragraph. All anyone has to do is look at what you posted, sir, to get my point. You came here posting as a first time contributor with a decidedly 'anti DNR policy' slant regarding this issue and others. I'm hoping after our exchange you can now see all sides of the issue better and continue to discuss the issue reasonably here. Been a great conversation in my opinion.
After a contributor said he 'heard' 5000, I called Mr. Ramsell and got his answer. I spoke with several Muskie guides from the ST and the Larry, and asked Mr. Ramsell to put a few chunks of data to paper for me and get a few anecdotal reports as well. He's currently putting that data and more into a short piece I'll publish on OutdoorsFIRST over on the Muskie side. The kill on St Clair was estimated at about 4000 according to Larry Ramsell and his sources in the MIDNR, that's the figure I've used from a very reliable source since Brad and I exchanged posts earlier.
I find tons of fact here, posted by all sorts of folks.
| |
| | |
| Tyee:
"Believe me there was discussion on allowing boats to only be used on certain waters, if this were done would we all have argued that the DNR has taken this "serious" threat too far?" How can you take a SERIOUS THREAT too far? | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Cash,
There will be, and I'm already sure of this, more volunteers and paid Lake Association folks at landings this year checking boats and trailers. Maybe the regs will relax after awhile, maybe they DO get more stringent. I agree with Stacker that the power boaters who trailer rigs have a stake here, so we'll see where that goes...if anywhere.
Last fall, the landing folks asked me where I had fished over the last few days, and asked if my livewell was empty and my bilge drained. | |
| | |
| The DNR consiting of fish biologists and fish management specialist enacted a rule that called for the dumping (killing) of all minnows used in a VHS infected system. The NRB called for the dumping (killing) of all minnows used in any water system. Does the NRB have more insight into the VHS virus than those specialists in the DNR? | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Uhhh, those guys do talk to each other. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Cash were splitting hairs now, "serious threat"...thats my opinionated definition so lets define it in laymans terms.
The speed limit is 25mph. It is for the safety of others. The road is used by various motor vehicles that can all cause various extents of damage. ALL have to abide by the 25mph law correct? The moped, the 20 year old junker with bad brakes and the 18 wheeler. Who poses the more "serious threat" to the safety of others? Why should some follow it and others not? Should I not have to follow it because I have a new vehicle with state of the art brakes and it is inspected annually?
Take this same threat and relate it to the users of the waterways and insert ice fisherman, shore fisherman, guy with a 14' boat, fisherman with 21'. All capable of transporting live fish from place to place. All CAN pose a "threat" because they use our lakes and rivers. Do we write laws for each user group or laws that are practical for all?
I look at this as the first of more laws to come I'm sure, take ballast water for example and the cleaning of boats it is being looked at now and the main focus from our local DNR is the opening of the locks. They have to develop a system of ensuring no invasives are moved up/down stream of the great lakes. Seems to me to be a no win situation for them (as there are no proven methods of doing this in a timely and cost effective manner). How do they write a law for you or I to transpoort our boat from an infected body of water to another body of water? Or should they? Lets just let those other 200 invasives in and let mother nature deal with it. (insert foot in arse)
Edited by tyee 1/15/2008 8:17 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| "The speed limit is 25mph. It is for the safety of others. The road is used by various motor vehicles that can all cause various extents of damage. ALL have to abide by the 25mph law correct? The moped, the 20 year old junker with bad brakes and the 18 wheeler. Who poses the more "serious threat" to the safety of others? Why should some follow it and others not? Should I not have to follow it because I have a new vehicle with state of the art brakes and it is inspected annually? "
yet all of them are going 30 mph. What's been accomplished? | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | Better than the chaos of unregulated 'do what you wish'. Hit someone doing 40mph, and see how that goes. And if an enforcement officer is there, I bet you and everyone else will be doing 25. We just don't like being regulated, even for our own good.
You are arguing that the rule of law is a waste of time. I can't agree with that; it's how our democracy functions top to bottom.  | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| The Autobond? Anarchy?
"unregulated do what you wish" is bit more extreme than "suggested practice". About as extreme as claiming piles of dead fish 10' wide and 3' deep, which was not the case either.
How 'bout instead of a fine for breaking the law, we take their hunting and fishing privilages away for 5 years? It is a "serious threat". Same sentence for someone who doesn't disinfect thier hull? How about not cleaning the weeds off thier trailer? Eurasion milfoil is problem, it's easy to see the offender traveling down the highway? See it all the time.
I'm glad you're pro-active, I'm just being a realist. Errrrr Opinionated, complaining, realist that doesn't operate on fact. | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | If you try to launch that boat on Pelican with that milfoil on the trailer, and give the association invasives volunteer any trouble there, the warden will come on over and talk it over with you.
'No law' defines anarchy. Not 'no speed limit 'on a specific freeway in Germany. Do 90 in that neighborhood, and get arrested, if that suits. I'll choose to obey the law there. Up to all of us as individuals, and thankfully for us all, most choose to abide by the law more or less.
Fine, some don't think VHS is a serious threat, the folks who make their living and have the degrees and are working as scientists and biologists obviously disagree. I'll choose to listen to them and do what they ask, but that's me. I see the evidence as looking bad enough I don't want to encourage or even chance fish kills all across the state if anything at all I can do will lessen that possibility, but again, that's me. I'd be darned disappointed to see 5 53" muskies floating dead on George, or 125 29" walleyes dead on Thunder because some fool decided to dump bait infected on Winnebago in either lake. But again, that's me! That's why I posted this information in the first place.
I'm obviously opinionated too. However, I won't attack or bash anyone involved in the subject matter of the debate or anyone who has joined in the debate. I'll question, point out what I am trying to indicate offering data from sources, etc. and will ask how the others in the debate came to the stated position they have taken. I'll point out what appears to be mistakes or inaccurate assumptions, point out obvious flip-flops by someone I'm debating, and would expect same from them. I try to steer the conversation to the actual subject matter, and away from train wreck arguments that solve nothing and do not serve the debate. I do so enjoy a good debate!
Don't know about the fish piles, that wasn't me that posted that stuff.
I might complain, but I'll do my best to do so from at least a somewhat informed position. So do you, from what I've seen.
Offer complaints and no resolution, or offer complaints just to complain, and the shoe fits. I'm pretty sure you don't fit that model.
Realist is a great term. Everyone's reality is based on their beliefs, so to speak, so reality can take on quite a few shades to grey. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 538
| Regarding folks who live on he lake, it is my understanding that you can store your bait on the shore or off your pier, but must have ID on the bucket. Perhaps a bit of a problem with ice, but not insurmountable.
This is an incredible thread in itself, with lot of good information, and folks with a lot of time on their hands. Anybody working out there? :).
I agree that the boats are bigger issue than the bait, and less controllable.
If you don't trust someone to use the bait properly, you certainly can not expect that that person thoughrouly cleaned their boat or had it out of the water for 5days in the proper drying conditions.
Yes, the DNR is proper to act, but some common sense is needed.
Inform and trust the folks fishing. If a boater is fishing Pewaukee Lake for three days in a row, there is no need to kill his bait. I would suspect the rules are one size fits all to avoid any confusion as to what lakes are involved and which are 'safe'. It is unenforcable and wasteful. Responsible folks will do the right thing and you will not stop the rest from re-using bait and failing to clean boats when needed. I think a few amendmends to the ruling, as it now exists are in order.
Take care,
Jim O | |
| | |
Location: Rhinelander | My son designed a PVC 'livewell' he keeps under the ice at his trailer out on the lake. Holds several dozen minnows, and is easy to retrieve and gather the bait for the day. I'll get images of this contraption soon. | |
| |
|
